Factory Farming is Illegal



Handcuffs01_2003-06-02 (1).jpgNote: This post is just a very lightly edited copy of the notes I used for my presentation at the 2018 Animal Rights National Conference (complete with what now everyone will know are my scripted jokes).

Four main takeaways from this talk:

  • Laws are only as good as their enforcement
  • Industrial animal agriculture is illegal
  • Rescuing animals is not
  • I am not your lawyer and you should not rely on anything I say as legal advice (and frankly by the time I’m done, you might think I’m not a very good lawyer anyway…). And relatedly, today I’m just representing myself and not speaking on behalf of any group


Everything you think you know about animal law is wrong

  • You’ve been told that there are no meaningful laws that exist to protect farmed animals
  • You’ve been told that any standard industry practice is perfectly legal–from ripping off piglets’ testicles without painkillers to grinding up baby birds to confining them in cages that are so small that they can’t even spread their wings
  • You’ve been told that we are criminals, that we are terrorists, for rescuing animals from extreme violence and neglect
  • This is exactly what the industry wants you to believe


It’s time to flip the script

  • Animal rescue is not criminal. Animal agriculture is.
    • In this country we already have laws that protect farmed animals from cruelty
    • We already have laws that protect the environment from being drenched with sewage
    • We already have laws that protect people from being poisoned by contaminated products
    • We already have laws that protect people from being lied to by corporate America
  • And the ag industry routinely violates every single one of these
    • These companies knowingly and needlessly subject animals to extreme suffering
    • They knowingly dump millions of pounds of feces on our lands
    • They know their products are contaminated with diseases, even ones resistant to antibiotics, and they sell them to us anyway
    • And they know their products are not humane, they know they are not natural, they know they are deceiving the public and they do it anyway
  • And there are laws on the books that explicitly grant you the rights to go on to farms and provide food and water to neglected animals and there are age-old legal doctrines that have the potential to protect your rights to rescue animals from abuse


Animal cruelty statutes

  • Show of hands: who here has talked to a friend or a family member or a stranger about the way animals are treated in agriculture?
  • And who has told someone that everything the industry does to animals is legal or that there are no laws that protect them from standard industry practices, no matter how cruel?
  • This is the conventional wisdom. It’s one of the first things I learned in my journey in becoming an animal activist. But it’s a myth.
  • To be clear, there is certainly some truth there. There are no federal laws that protect animals on farms. And most of the big animal ag states explicitly exempt “customary” farming practices from anti-cruelty laws.
  • But guess what? California doesn’t. New York doesn’t. Minnesota doesn’t. And many other states don’t either.
  • All of these states have huge ag industries
  • California’s law
    • Every person who overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal…or fails to provide the animal with proper food, drink, or shelter or protection from the weather is…guilty of a crime;
    • “‘Torture’ is defined not in its ordinary language sense, but includes any act or omission “whereby unnecessary or unjustified physical pain or suffering is caused or permitted.” …
  • So now I’m going to ask for another show of hands.
    • Raise your hand if you think most people you’ve talked to about animal agriculture would agree that cutting off a piglet’s testicles without painkillers is an unjustifiable mutilation
    • … if keeping animals in a cage so small that they can’t turn around for their entire lives would constitute unjustifiable physical pain or suffering
    • … if it is cruel to grind baby birds alive
    • Not just animal activists that think this. In a recent ag-gag decision, a federal judge in Utah recently described the maceration of baby chicks in the egg industry (a standard agricultural practice) as a gruesome practice that demonstrated the importance of undercover investigations.


Enforcement/prosecutorial discretion

  • So if unjustifiable cruelty is illegal and there’s no exemption for standard industry practices, and the vast majority of people think that all these standard industry practices are unjustifiably cruel, why aren’t the CEOs of Tyson and Smithfield and McDonalds and Whole Foods thrown in jail when they get off the plane in San Francisco or New York City? Why aren’t these companies considered criminal enterprises in these states?
  • Guess what the courts have had to say about the answer to this question?
  • Any guesses?
  • Basically nothing.
  • The fact is that no prosecutor has ever had the guts to stand up to industry and even try to prosecute these companies for standard farming practices
  • The companies say that they are engaging in standard industry practices. The state departments of agriculture say, “yep nothing to see here.” And the animal science professors and the veterinarians say these practices are necessary to produce affordable food for consumers. And the prosecutors say that “I hardly have enough time to prosecute murderers and bank robbers—I certainly don’t have time to prosecute people for hurting farm animals, and especially not when its for normal practices, and definitely not when it involves a giant industry that will bankroll my opponent in the next election cycle”


Top law professors largely agree

  • Cass R. Sunstein (literally the most cited law professor in the world)
    • “If horses and cows are being beaten and mistreated at a local farm…protection will come only if the prosecutor decides to provide it. Of course prosecutors have limited budgets, and animal protection is rarely a high-priority item. The result is that violations of state law occur every day.” …
    • “prosecution occurs only in a subset of the most egregious cases; there is a great deal of difference between what these statutes ban and what in practice is permitted to occur… They express an aspiration, but one that is routinely violated in practice, and violated with impunity.”


So what can we do?

  • When I first learned about this—when I first learned that prosecutors had the ability to destroy a system of industrial animal torture and they just chose not to exercise it—I asked myself: how the hell do these people sleep at night?
  • Then it dawned on me. The answer is that we let them.
  • We, the animal rights movement, have watched these prosecutors ignore literal torture on an unimaginable scale, and we’ve thrown up our hands and said “oh, I guess it’s not illegal after all”
  • That is the nail in coffin for these animals. If we don’t argue that this treatment is illegal. If we don’t pressure our government to take action, who will?
  • We have eliminated the cruel fur industry in San Francisco. We have ended the abusive wild animal circus industry in New York. I believe we can elect prosecutors who will prosecute the obscenely cruel practices that the animal agriculture industry relies upon for its existence. And soon after that, I believe we will abolish animal agriculture entirely.


Necessity defense

  • The other side of the coin to all of this is how we think about people who rescue animals without permission from the government
  • For most of my time as an activist, I thought these people were heroes who were breaking the law for the greater good.
  • Today, I see things differently. Today, I see these animal rescuers as engaging in conduct that is legally protected by the doctrine of necessity
  • In California, an act must meet six criteria in order to be protected by the necessity defense. But three are most important to discuss:
  • 1) The act charged as criminal must have been done to prevent a significant evil; (2) there must have been no adequate alternative to the commission of the act; (3) the harm caused by the act must not be disproportionate to the harm avoided;
  • Going through them in turn, I think 1, the show of hands before demonstrated that most people think the ag industry is engaging in significant evil in its treatment of animals.
  • There is no adequate alternative: as we’ve discussed, the police and prosecutors have shown they are unable or unwilling to take action and many of the world’s top law professors have recognized this fact.
    • In addition to Cass Sunstein who I quoted earlier, Laurence Tribe, (probably the most respected constitutional law scholar in modern history) has written that “existing state and federal statutes depend on enforcement by chronically underfunded agencies and by directly affected and highly motivated people–and that’s just not a sufficiently reliable source of protection.”
  • the harm caused by the act must not be disproportionate to the harm avoided. Again, I think the show of hands makes this clear.


Statutory necessity

  • Interestingly, the law in both New York and California explicitly codifies a necessity defense for entering places where neglected animals are confined to provide them with food and water
    • New York: If animal in confined without necessary food and water for more than twelve successive hours, “it shall be lawful for any person, from time  to  time,  and  as often  as  it  shall  be  necessary, to enter into and upon any pound in which any such animal shall be  so  confined,  and  to  supply  it  with necessary  food  and water, so long as it shall remain so confined; such person shall not be liable  to  any  action  for  such  entry,  and  the reasonable  cost  of  such food and water may be collected by him of the owner of such animal”



  • There is A LOT of legal risk, involved in engaging in rescue, or in entering farms to feed animals without permission. These are all novel legal arguments. Even though the last statute I read explicitly states that entering such places is lawful, I am not aware of any cases that these laws have actually been tested and upheld
  • This is an argument to push the boundary of the law, most judges and prosecutors would not agree today. But this is our job as activists
  • Law and the prosecutors and the jury pools really vary from state to state. That means the risks really vary as well.
  • Also the risks vary significantly from person to person. The risks are VERY different for citizen vs. non-citizen, a black person vs a white person, a poor person vs. a rich person.
  • Engaging in this sort of work might not be for everyone. You have to decide if it is right for you. There are so many ways to bring value to this movement, and this high risk work is just one of them


The law doesn’t just exist on paper

  • I’ll close with this: for the vast majority of our country’s history it was obvious that same-sex couples didn’t have the right to get married. And then one day, it wasn’t so obvious any more. And then it was the law of the land
  • There was never any formal constitutional amendment that made this change, but the law radically transformed
  • The law doesn’t just exist on paper. It exists in the hearts and minds of the people.
  • As advocates, our job to find ancient principles of justice embedded in our law and our culture, and make the case for how truly living up to those values requires a revolutionary shift in our treatment of the marginalized
  • we need to stop allowing the industry or prosecutors to have the final say on what the law is
  • We need to get out there with a bold vision that rescuing animals from the abusive ag industry is not only the right thing to do, but that it these violent and abusive corporations that are the real criminals
  • We need to get out there and rescue animals with pride knowing that our conduct is supported by fundamental values enshrined in our law.
  • We need to get out there and rescue them again, and again and again, until every cage is empty.

“Is Shame Necessary?” Calls Consumer Activism and Humane Labeling Into Question



(Spoiler alert: shame is necessary)

Wow. Seriously, why does nobody in the animal rights movement talk about this book? It absolutely deserves to become part of the canon of Effective Animal Activism. In this post, I share my ten most important takeaways from the book, and then after that, I list my favorite quotes (sometimes paraphrased) from each chapter. But first, an introduction:

In “Is Shame Necessary?” NYU professor Jennifer Jacquet directly analyzes social change strategies in the context of animal advocacy.  When it came out last year, the book received glowing reviews from some of the world’s leading psychologists and sociologists, and yet I have never heard anyone mention it before. This is in spite of the fact that I spend hours every day talking to people specifically about social change strategy and animal advocacy. Clearly, I need to get out more.

Anyway, I just finished reading the book, and I’m very impressed. If I had to boil to the central message of the book into one sentence it would be this: Shaming institutions, not consumer activism, should be the centerpiece of social movements … and also, eco-labeling has failed. As one of the many animal advocates who is skeptical of the movement’s focus on veganism, personal consumer activism, and being “nice,” I found it extremely satisfying to see many of my views being argued for in an authoritative book by a serious academic at the world’s premier research institution. (Okay, that last bit might be a stretch, but…go Violets!)

(It’s not food, it’s violets)

Now, full disclosure: I’m on the legal team of Direct Action Everywhere, a grassroots animal advocacy network that is known primarily for using shame against institutions and individuals. So, I recommend that you take my reading of the book with several grains of organic free range sea salt. That being said, I will begrudgingly admit that the book also makes a great case for the investigations and corporate pressure campaigns done by DxE’s arch-rivals at Mercy for Animals, The Humane League, and HSUS. (Please don’t tell any of my DxE friends I said that). I also think that Professor Jacquet would have more than a few critiques of how DxE is using shame.

Finally, before I list the takeaways, I want to voice a few mild criticisms I have of the book, for those who might want to read it. First off, I was a bit disappointed by the lack of evidence cited in the section about creating new social norms, but as Jacquet notes, evidence in this field is especially thin. Second, the book is more oriented towards the environmental movement than the animal rights movement: she spends a lot of time talking about sustainable fishing and dolphin-safe tuna labels, and only briefly touches on cage free and fur campaigns. Third, she doesn’t quite distinguish between labels like “cage free”– which is seemingly concrete and less subject to manipulation — and “organic” — which strikes me as inherently amorphous and susceptible to misrepresentation. Finally,  I often felt unsure about how to implement a lot of the advice of the book, since it commonly took the form of general statements like “don’t shame too often or too severely.” I feel like I have a lot of important points like that to keep in mind, but I’m definitely left wondering things like, “how do we know if it’s too much?”

Anyway, those are my mild criticisms. I still highly recommend the book. But in case you can’t read the whole thing, here are my ten key takeaways, followed by my favorite quotes from the book:

  1. Consumer activism has become the primary tool of many social movements, to the great detriment of animals and the environment.
  2. Eco-labeling has been a major failure overall
  3. Buying green may not be a “good first step” due to moral licensing problems
  4. We should focus on organized efforts to change institutions, not individuals
  5. Shame can be a very effective tool for changing individual and institutional behavior
  6. We must utilize government regulation
    • And we must preserve victories through codification in law and policy
  7. Making shaming more acceptable to the crowd is key to effectiveness

    • although, many individuals considered norm entrepreneurs today, like Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela, were at first considered delinquents
  8. Shame is more powerful than guilt when it comes to establishing new norms
  9. No matter how it is implemented, shaming will not work if there is no audience and if it doesn’t get anyone’s attention
  10. There are many ways to maximize the benefits of shaming and minimize the drawbacks:
    1. Focus on powerful institutions, rather than individuals
    2. Frame your position in terms of the broad moral commitments/beliefs of the society you’re working in
    3. The transgressor should be part of the group doing the shaming
    4. Shaming should come from a respected source
    5. Don’t attack “the little guy,” punish too severely, or too often


My favorite quotes (sometimes paraphrased):

Ch. 1 Shame Explained

  • Until this push for certification [dolphin-safe tuna, Fairtrade, sustainable forestry etc.], the goal of shaming campaigns and boycotts had been to fundamentally change entire companies or industries. Activists like Cesar Chavez, behind the strike and boycott of table grape in the 1960s, would not have ended their efforts with a label on grapes that read, “Picked by farmworkers who earned a minimum wage.” The aim was not to satisfy the concerns of a few consumers, but to (among other things) change federal rules for the minimum wage and workplace safety for all farmworkers.
  • But by the 1980s, the notion of directly changing supply was being displaced by the idea of changing demand.
  • As the focus shifted from supply to demand, shame on the part of corporations began to be overshadowed by guilt on the part of consumers – as the vehicle for solving social and environmental problems.
  • With so many recent collective-action problems, especially those related to labor and the environment, we have been asked to engage with our guilt about these problems as consumers rather than as citizens or activists—not even as an organized group of consumers, which have been responsible for large-scale boycotts, but as individual, household purchasers who make decisions only as individuals.
  • It was not enough for people who disagreed with slavery not to own slaves themselves, they saw the need to stop everyone from owning slaves everywhere.
  • If we had not been pacified by the logos and certifications and enlightened supermarkets, we might have remained upset
  • Shame – exposing a transgressor to public disapproval
  • guilt has been asked to perform a function it is not quite up to—namely, solving large-scale cooperation problems
  • Shame can lead to increased stress and withdrawal from society …. But shame can also improve behavior. A study of U.S. adults found that half could recall at least one meeting with a doctor that left them feeling ashamed, most often for smoking or being overweight. Of those who reported feeling ashamed, nearly half then avoided or lied to their physician in subsequent meetings to evade any further shame, while the other half said they were grateful to the doctor, and about one-third of the patients said they even initiated improvements in their behavior.
  • In contrast to shame, which aims to hold individuals to the group standard, guilt’s role is to hold individuals to their own standards. For cultures that champion the individual, guilt is preferable to shame, because shame means worrying about the group.
  • Reputation is the asset that shaming attacks.
  • [When Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced they were ending their funding of Planned Parenthood, they were shamed into reinstating it. Researchers tracked Twitter traffic and found 253,465 messages related to the decision: 17 percent positive, 19 percent neutral, and 64 percent critical. Three days after the decision, the NYT and WaPo ran related stories , and the volume of messages on Twitter peaked. Most of the messages were negative. The foundation reversed its decision by the end of the day.]


  • One of honor’s shortcomings is precisely its optional nature—not everyone seeks it, while most of us seek to avoid the taint of shame


Ch. 3 The Limits to Guilt

  • Just as the devout purchased guilt-alleviating papal indulgences in the Middle Ages, guilt-ridden consumers today buy dolphin-safe tuna, compact florescent lightbulbs, hybrid cars, and Ethos Water.
  • Guilt-free products are also almost always more expensive, because, as the free-market logic goes, the costs are internalized rather than externalized to the environment. So just as the rich could buy their way out of penance, the rich can now presume to buy their way out of environmental destruction and its associated guilt.
  • The dolphin-safe logo of 1990, which eased the consciences of schoolchildren, including me, arose in the context of free-market ideology in which individual consumers, not government oversight over large-scale producers, were idealized as responsible for how things are produced. (In truth, regulation was key to decreasing dolphin deaths in tuna-fishing gears).
  • Lots of other ecolabels now exist, from “cage free” to “free range” to grass fed” to “all natural.” The framing for these labels is useful because they show us the default production practices like factory arming and synthetic additives.
  • Many of these labels are misleading both consumers and conservation funders and leading to undesired complacency.
  • The [Marine Stewardship Council] label is meant to distinguish seafood caught with good fishing practices from that caught with bad fishing practice …. Today the MSC logo is on more than 180 fisheries but has failed to demonstrate improvements on the water. In protest, environmental groups have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to formally object to MSC certifications, claiming the MSC’s principles are too lenient and allow for overly generous interpretation by the third parties that actually do the certification. When challenged, the MSC responded that [their requirement for “respect for laws”] is “different from compliance” and “does not require that a fishery management system be in perfect minute to minute compliance with every single piece of law that may govern a fishery.” The MSC has replaced its intention to protect ocean species with a word game.
  • The number of eco-labels continues to increase, even though no studies suggest that eco-certifying fish has led to more fish in the sea, or that certifying wood has increased forest cover. The organic food industry is worth $30 billion but represents only 4 percent of the food market. Froom 2000 to 2007, the United States did decrease its pesticide use by 8 percent, which sounds pretty good until you realize that this means a reduction from 1.2 billion pounds to 1.1 billion pounds. The labels alone are not getting us where we want to go.
  • Recent investigations suggest that the relatively successful “organic” label is also, at least in the United States, headed for trouble. Signs of regulatory capture are evident, with large companies like General Mills, Campbell Soup Company, and Whole Foods Market on the standards board, which attempted, in one case, to add a synthetic herbicide to the list of what can count as organic.
  • Walmart has been accused of peddling fake organic food on more than one occasion. In 2007, the retailer was exposed for using in-store signage to mislabel foods as organic at dozens of stores, and in 2011 for mislabeling conventional pork as organic in China.
  • Some evidence from work on moral licensing disagrees with this assumption that buying green is a good first step. A 2009 study showed that participants who were exposed to green products in a computer-simulated grocery store acted more generously in experiments that followed, but that participants who actually purchased green products over conventional ones then behaved more selfishly. A 2013 study confirmed suspicions about slacktivism when research showed that people who undertook token behaviors to present a positive image in front of others—things like signing a petition or wearing a bracelet of “liking” a cause—were less likely to engage with the cause in a meaningful way later than others who made token gestures that were private.
  • This research suggests that linking “green” to conspicuous consumption might be a distraction and lead to less engagement later on. If this is true, we should not be encouraged to engage with our guilt as disenfranchised consumers, capable of making a change only through our purchases, and instead encouraged to engage as citizens. Markets might even undermine norms for more serious environmental behavior. In some cases, as has been noted in Western Australia, eco-labeling fisheries may even be giving fishing interests leverage against establishing marine protected areas, where fishing would be prohibited or more heavily regulated, on the ground that protection is not needed if the fisheries in those area are already labeled eco-friendly. The market for green products might sedate our guilt without providing the larger, serious outcomes we really desire.
  • The main incentives for producers to do the right thing—like grow organic foods or fish in sustainable ways—is a higher price for their product. To get a price premium, those products have to be the exception and not the rule, which means the market could ease the consciences of a few consumers but avoids making any imposed, long-lasting changes to the industry.
  • In 1974, Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, two chemists at the University of California, Irvine related the use of CFCs to the depletion of the atmosphere….Destruction of the ozone layer did not slow because a handful (or even a majority of consumers who felt guilty about the growing ozone hole began buying products that were CFC free. The CFC ban was implemented regionally three years after the discovery, and then globally with the 1987 Montreal Protocol. “You cannot solve these problems with voluntary action, because most people will not volunteer,” Molina told me. “It has to become government policy.”
  • Another reason green guilt is so ineffective is simply that it’s felt over the wrong things. When a list of the top twenty-five steps you can take for the environment includes “use rechargeable batteries,” we should all pause.
  • In 2010, the chief executive of AutoNation, said “You have about 5 percent of the market that is green and committed to fuel efficiency, but the other 95 percent will give up an extra 5 mpg for a better cup holder.
  • Eco-markets did diddly-squat for average fuel standards in the United States, which was flatlined between 1989 and 2005. When the Obama administration signed legislation in 2012 that required automakers to make new cars and truck with almost double the efficiency by 2025, consumer demand had nothing to do with it.
  • Green consumerism was doomed to become a point of satire because it began to take itself too seriously. It began to look at itself as not only a solution but the solution.
  • [Guilt] can, in some ways, be a healthy response to many of our problems. But the flaw comes when guilt is misguided and we find relief in shopping rather than activism, or when guilt over collective problems is used to improve oneself rather than to strategically consider the collective whole.
  • A handful of guilty consumers buying this or that was not what motivated car companies to increase fuel standards or what motivated Walmart to give its employees health insurance. It was not what got women the right to vote. Guilt-ridden consumers were not what convinced companies to stop the production of ozone-producing chemicals.
  • Small changes made by big institutions can make a serious difference—whereas small changes made by individual consumers cannot. Chevron’s emissions in 2010 alone account for eleven times the emissions of all of the U.S. household lighting combined. Getting one single company to reduce its emissions by just 10 percent has a greater impact that getting every single American to agree to live in the dark.


Ch. 4 Bad Apples

  • In a laboratory setting that used cooperative games, the threat of social exclusion prevented bad apples from becoming contagious. In our own experiments, the threat of shame made people more cooperative, and they gave more money to the public pool. At the international level, adverse publicity has been used to coerce bad-apple countries into agreements.


Ch. 5 How Norms Become Normal

  • Studies show that the emphasizing the expectation of low voter turnout could lead to fewer people voting.
  • People tend to calibrate their actions to what they see or hear is common behavior. When visitors to a national forest read signs asking people not to steal petrified wood because a lot of people has stolen wood in the past, theft actually increased.
  • A boycott, for instance, can serve two purposes: it can ostracize a business in the market place, and it can also focus negative attention and act as a shaming technique. [Martin Luther King Jr.] explained that “nonviolent resistance does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through noncooperation or boycotts, but he realized that noncooperation and boycotts are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent.”
  • In a littered environment, people are more likely to litter themselves. That means that in some cases, showing the crowd the existing norm—such as how little other teens drink or how much energy neighboring households use—can lead to less overall drinking or energy use.
  • Shame is more powerful than guilt when it comes to establishing new norms. Whereas guilt relies upon an internalized norm, shame can be used strategically before the norm has been internalized, especially in the absence of formal sanctions or during the period before formal rules are instituted.
  • Community-led sanitation programs that started in rural Bangladesh in 2000 connected the practice of open defecation to shame. Many programs began with members of the community doing a transect walk, sometimes called the “walk of shame,” in which the group counted the number of human feces along the route. In some cases, the excrement was flagged with the name of the offender. In other communities, after education efforts to connect human feces to disease, leaders used flashlights on individuals who defecated in the open after dark.
  • The program also attempted to co-opt the existing disgust for using private latrines and redirect it toward open defecation. Changing the pathways for disgust can also be a major part of new norm formation.
  • Understanding the meta-norms of a culture, which can be used to anchor and promote new norms, is also important to changing norms. In Western cultures, meta-norms like harm and fairness, drive a lot of moral behavior, and norms that frame themselves in these contexts probably have a better chance at mobilizing the crowd.
  • Norm entrepreneurs- Research on recycling behavior showed that city blocks with a leader who informed neighbors about recycling pickup days recycled more than double the blocks without leaders. Norm entrepreneurs also are capable of using shame effectively because they have the trust and attention of the crowd.
  • Norm entrepreneurs need not be famous, but they should be respected. Both adults and children prefer to listen, watch, and learn from people with status earned from greater skills and success, expressions of confidence, and experience. Prestigious people also more strongly influence beliefs. In an experiment to test this, two groups of students were given a study that estimated the number of students who cheat. One group was told that a professor had conducted the study and the other group that a student had, although in both cases the estimates were the same. Each student then estimated the percentage of their friends who cheated, and students’ estimates were significantly higher and more closely matched to the estimates they had read if they had been in the professor condition. Prestigious people not only disproportionately affect beliefs through their higher social status but also because they often have a broader social reach.
  • Many individuals considered norm entrepreneurs today, like Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela, were at first considered delinquents…. The three servicemen who helped expose the atrocities of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam were initially ostracized by the U.S. military, which three decades later awarded them medals and invited them to speak to soldiers about ethics.
  • Norm entrepreneurs also don’t have to be individuals. Governments also lead in norm establishment and enforcement, as in the case of the separation of church and state, the one-child policy of Mao Zedong, or the $350 find for honking in Manhattan. Scandinavian countries might be weak military powers but they have been norm entrepreneurs in environmental politics, conflict resolution, and foreign aid policy.
  • Nonprofit groups successfully used shaming to convince the U.S. government to stop executing juvenile offenders.
  • Taxes can also be effective in changing behavior, as they have been in reducing smoking in many parts of the world and traffic, at least in places like Stockholm.
  • Introducing markets for specific behavior can sometimes undermine other motivations, which can undermine other human values. [In daycare centers that charged a fee for picking up kids late, the number of late pickups skyrocketed]. Even after experimenters removed the fine, the number of late-coming parents remained high. The market for being late shifted the social norm: the financial penalty was less burdensome than guilt or shame had been. Putting a price tag on behavior most people see as negative can sometimes exacerbate, not temper, a trend.
  • Harvard economist Roland Fryer set out to test whether paying underprivileged minorities could cultivate a new norm to study harder in school…. Fryer published the results of his work, which showed that financial incentives had little or no effect on academic performance—not for the reading, tests, or courses—and no effect on the students self-reported effort. Similar results have been reported in programs that pay health care practitioners for healthier patients and programs that pay teenagers not to become pregnant again.
  • Studies of CCTV, which has been introduced in many urban areas to deter crime, show that about half of the CCTV projects studied reduced crime, but not forever. In several cases, such as with the CCTV units in the London Underground, effectiveness was reduced or eliminated in just under a year.
  • Part of the success of the audience effect is that it serves as a warning that punishment could occur. If that punishment never comes, perhaps the audience effect loses its potency.


Ch. 6- The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Shaming

  • Shaming is also used to set an example and establish a norm, even when there is no hope of changing the transgressor’s behavior, because it lets others know that such behavior will be punished. Part of our discomfort with shaming is that it is difficult to guarantee success, and shaming (like other punishments) can sometimes backfire.
  • Making shaming more acceptable to the crowd…is key to effectiveness, given that the crowd is asked to be part of the punishment.
  • The recipe for effective shaming begins with an obvious transgression against a norm, an obvious transgressor, and a desired and achievable outcome.
  • The transgression should (1) concern the audience, (2) deviate widely from desired behavior, and (3) not be expected to be formally punished. The transgressor should be (4) be part of the group doing the shaming. And the shaming should come from a respected source, (6) be directed where possible benefits are the highest, and (7) be implemented conscientiously
  • Health researchers argue that dirty looks and other forms of shaming have been key to reducing smoking rates—just as successful, in some cases, as taxes on tobacco.
  • It is also possible for the audience to feel indirectly harmed, which is part of the reason shaming is also used to stop whaling, land mine, recruiting of child soldiers, and deforestation. Europe’s strong reaction to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the subsequent shaming of American military practices happened not because European citizens were direct victims of abuse. When transgressions enter a serious moral domain, they are also likely to attract an audience’s concern.
  • “The strength of organizations like Human Rights Watch is not their rhetorical voice but their shaming methodology—their ability to investigate misconduct and expose it to public opprobrium.
  • Researchers labeled some foods at a hospital kiosk “less healthy” and sales of healthier items increased by 6 percent.
  • It’s always more acceptable for a group to criticize itself from within than to be criticized from without.
  • For shaming to have traction, it should come from a source that the audience respects. A study that looked at Russian companies between 1992 and 2002 found that shaming a CEO of an underperforming company worked (meaning the CRO resigned or changed company policy) only if the exposure was in an American or British newspaper. Exposure in Russian newspapers seemed to have no effect, because, according to the study’s authors, those papers lack credibility.
  • Prestigious individuals are more trusted to punish, and less prestigious individuals are less trusted to punish.
  • Shamers seriously harm their efforts when it is revealed that they are partaking in the behavior they are shaming.
  • Too much punishing can make a punisher feared, not trusted, and lead to shaming have the opposite of its intended effect.
  • Given the finite amount of attention the audience has to give, and the problem of getting and maintaining that attention, shaming should be used sparingly, so as to maintain its power. Frivolous shaming can be a distraction from other transgressions that mean more, and a misuse of the audience’s attention.
  • To maximize effectiveness, it often can be better to focus on institutions, companies, or countries rather than individuals.
  • [Sometimes, shaming has effects for years, other times, shaming requires a long term investment]
  • No matter how it is implemented, shaming will not work if there is no audience and if it doesn’t get anyone’s attention.


Ch. 8 Shaming in the attention economy

  • Abstract forms of shaming are more acceptable as well as less expensive (ex. Unions using large inflatable rats instead of picketing and large protests)
  • We might have stricter moral standards for individuals as well as stricter rules about how we use shaming against them
  • The Marine Stewardship Council, the eco-label for fish uses third-party certifiers that nobody has ever heard of to do the actual certification, which means the MSC can divert the flak of bad decisions.
  • Lawsuits tend to only call more attention to bad publicity. One way to escape shaming is to simply wait it out, and this is standard corporate protocol for bad publicity. Time heals all wounds.
  • Boomerang effect- the tendency for people who had abstained from an undesirable behavior begin to partake because they come to incorrectly perceive that behavior as normal. One way to avoid this is to remind the audience of the norm, just as the California tax-delinquent website reminds people that “nearly 90 percent of taxpayers pay the taxes they owe.”
  • For those looking to actually quell the shaming, one option is to express gratitude or remorse.
  • Another way to make amends is by apologizing.
  • Shaming Gates for being a monopolist, shaming fisheries for killing dolphins, and shaming manufacturers for poor working conditions have all led to better behavior.


Ch. 10- The Sweet Spot of Shame

  • Sometimes, shaming is successful in establishing a norm, as it was with decreasing the wearing of fur more than a decade ago,, but without formal rules to follow up, the norm can relapse (as happened with fur)
  • Shaming institutions… is probably not just more effective….but probably more acceptable. [Groups don’t have “human dignity”]
  • Acceptable shaming tends to focus on the powerful over the marginalized
  • [Shame] loses its power as it is used more. This is one reason to eliminate, as best we can, the frivolous uses of shame.
  • We should also ensure effective shaming organizations by recognizing the need for those organizations to be independent from groups that might be their target. Revolving doors, board memberships, and charitable donations are all subtle ways of preventing shaming

Standing up to the Left on Animal Rights


After a semester of learning about patriarchy and intersectional social justice, I finally shared with my class the uncomfortable thought that had been burning inside me all year.

Looking into the eyes of my professors and my peers, I told them I cannot take their commitment to justice seriously while they completely ignore the plight of nonhuman animals.

I wasn’t mean, but I did not hold back. I told them the how I really felt—how every animal activist really feels.

To their immense credit, the response was overwhelmingly supportive. One of my professors, the acclaimed feminist author Carol Gilligan, asked what materials on animal rights she should include for her future classes. Several students spoke up agreeing that animal rights deserves to be recognized as a bona fide social justice issue. One person told us about the horror she felt when she witnessed an animal slaughter. Another highlighted the inconsistency between our love for dogs and cats, and our treatment of farmed animals. After class, someone told me that I have totally changed her worldview on animals. Several others came up to me to voice their solidarity with me and the cause.

This discussion only came about because we were asked to write about how we resist injustice in our lives, and whether we identified with the materials and arguments presented throughout the course. I’m really glad I decided to say how I really felt. You can read my written response below. In it, I talk about the hypocrisy of the Left on animal rights, and my personal struggle as an animal activist working within progressive circles.


What to the animals is feminism and democracy?

I have always thought of myself as a resister. I have spent most of my life challenging racism, sexism, nationalism, classism, and other forms of discrimination. But for me, (a straight, rich, white, cisgender, male) growing up in one of the most diverse and liberal areas in the country, resistance was always easy. Resistance was against the Republicans–a distant and abstract rival tribe that existed somewhere out there–that occasionally manifested as a rare villainous conservative teacher or a rogue Facebook commenter. Backed by innumerable bleeding heart adult role models (especially my dad and my teachers) and smart liberal friends, it was easy for me to challenge these ideological outsiders on the red team.

“Resisting” was even easier in college. By this point I could decry the evils of right wing discrimination to reliable applause on social media. It was as clear as ever that compassionate and reasonable people would have my back on the issues that matter. I was a proud Democrat; an upstanding member of the blue team. My views were shared and defended by politicians, academics, journalists, friends and family. Together we were engaged in the fight for social justice against the oppressive conservatism of the Republicans…wherever they were.

That all changed when I became an animal rights activist. That is when I learned the meaning of resistance. For the first time in my life, I had to stand up not to some abstract other, but to my friends and allies; to the people I admired most. It was painful. And today, in the bastions of leftism: at NYU Law; on the Review of Law and Social Change; and in this very class, it is more painful than ever.

My fellow social justice activists constantly remind me that violence against animals is a sideshow at best—not a matter of serious moral concern that can share the stage with racism, sexism, homophobia and other urgent social justice issues. Sometimes these reminders are explicit, like when a prominent feminist NYU alumna ridiculed me for focusing on animal rights. Other times they are implicit, like when the Review of Law and Social Change decided to host a banquet that featured the bodies of animals who didn’t want to die. Most of the time, such as in this class, I am reminded by the total absence of anything related to animals at all.

I suppose that for the last paper of this course, it is only fitting for me to engage in some resistance. So I’ll challenge you, my friends and allies in the struggle for justice, to answer these questions: What to the animals is your feminism and democracy? What is your ethics of care? What is your justice? What is your liberty? What is your equality? What is your commitment to the marginalized? What is your compassion?

We challenge imprisonment and then confine them for life. We preach family defense and rip mothers from their children. We advocate sexual autonomy and then impregnate them against their will. We champion disability rights and then slaughter them because they aren’t smart enough. We say find your voice, and then ignore their cries.

Ideals like feminism and democracy do have the potential to really mean something for animals, but we have to make it so. Until then, I’m not sure they mean anything at all.

Why doesn’t Above The Law care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 1.08.24 AM

Every few months, the main NYU Law student listserv erupts into controversy over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We’re currently in the heat of one of those flare-ups.

People are very upset about this because (1) it’s the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and (2) many feel that this political fighting is an “abuse” of the listserv that is supposed to be used for…anything besides political discourse, I guess.

Thankfully, Above The Law, the preeminent source of irreverent gossip for legal professionals, has stepped in to provide some moral guidance to our helpless student body:

“Do not use giant listservs (let alone one that has the entire student body on it) for anything but their intended purposes. Unless the list is MiddleEastPolitics@lists.nyu.edu, don’t use it to spout your personal beliefs to everyone else. This is a lesson that will serve you well in law firm life too, as sending an email to AllAttorneys@biglaw.com with personal opinions is probably career suicide.”

That seems like reasonable advice, and it is…if your sole ambition is to rise up the corporate ladder (which could actually be a good thing). But for those of us who are willing and privileged enough to take personal risks for what we believe in, ATL’s advice just isn’t very satisfying.

If we accept ATL’s claim (i.e. that a forum designed for trading stuff and sharing events shouldn’t have discussion of social issues) at face value, then twenty years ago, they would have censored those who wished to “spout their personal beliefs” that gay people should be allowed to marry. And sixty years ago, ATL would have condemned those who spouted their personal beliefs that black people shouldn’t have to sit at the back of the bus.

Is ATL ready to condemn LGBT and civil rights activists who engaged in analogously disruptive behavior in similarly “inappropriate” venues? While we’re at it, please tell me, what would have been an appropriate forum to discuss the Rwandan genocide as it occurred? I’d really like to know. Just in case a moral disaster ever happens in my lifetime, I wouldn’t want to upset anyone by spouting my “personal” beliefs about it in a forum that isn’t “intended for that purpose.” Actually that’s okay, I’m sure nothing that bad will ever happen in my lifetime. There’s no way I could ever become a bystander to atrocity. That only happened to…every other generation in history.

In all seriousness, the bottom line is this: virtually everyone is willing to accept that some political issues are so urgent that “abusing” listservs to discuss them would be justified. As much as ATL pretends to avoid a value judgment about the underlying issue, their position is clear: the Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn’t morally serious enough to merit disrupting a listserv. That might be a fair position to take, but they should be honest about it and attempt to justify it.

Now, I’m not going to take a position on that question today either, but I wasn’t the one bullying activists for breaking a rule that nobody would follow when it came to an issue they thought was truly urgent.


To be clear, none of this is to say that disrupting a listserv is an effective tactic for social change. My intuition is that such disruptions are almost inevitably perceived as petty, no matter how important the underlying issue is. My point is that ATL and others who’ve advocated for a similar position are wholly unconcerned with the effectiveness of the tactic and have opposed listserv “abuse” on principle. Their concern is not “how can we best facilitate discourse about urgent social issues,” it is “how can we get annoying activists to allow us to live our lives in peace.” That is what I am opposed to.

I also want to add that it seems that those with the greatest political and economic power have the most to gain from efforts to restrict political advocacy to “appropriate” venues. Such restrictions disproportionately harm those with less political/economic power, who cannot afford or otherwise secure access to the “appropriate” spaces for political discussion (e.g. newspapers, television, congress, courts). Thus, the ATL approach is a great tool for preserving the status quo, if you’re into that.

So I just disrupted the Wall Street Journal and it was…uncomfortable.

Screen Shot 2015-10-19 at 5.51.36 PM

Today, Bryan Stevenson and the NYU School of Law remind us that “justice comes when people do uncomfortable things.”

Over the weekend, I stepped out of my comfort zone with Direct Action Everywhere to bring the voices of animals to the Wall Street Journal event “Why We Love Meat.” We disrupted it by sharing the stories of individual cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals. We chanted loudly, and the panelists left, effectively ending the event. Many attendees were understandably angry and hostile towards us.

I took no pleasure in upsetting them. If you know me, you know that I love people. I don’t want to ruin anyone’s day. I want to have real conversations with people; non-confrontational personal dialogues about social justice issues.

But while I much prefer advocacy that doesn’t cause people to hate me, I remember that hate is not the biggest threat to the marginalized: it’s indifference. Indifference allows the status quo to go unquestioned, and disruptions push people to confront the issue and publicly attempt to justify their behavior.

My favorite part of confrontational actions is being able to share these justifications and expose how weak the opposing arguments really are. At the WSJ event, Pat LaFrieda, a celebrity butcher, explained to us that the moral difference between eating cows and dogs is that cows are born to be killed, whereas dogs exist to comfort human beings. He continued to argue that “beef have different traits, characteristics, and personalities” than dogs. This is what we are up against: arguments that dogs are mere tools for human wellbeing and that a living cow is just beef with a personality.

It gets better. When we disrupted the beloved Smorgasburg event in Brooklyn, we were rebutted by sophisticated counter-protestors chanting, “I love meat, I love meat, I love meat.”

Now, I’m not certain that justice will come as a result of these uncomfortable actions. I know a lot of smart and dedicated activists who think these disruptions are really alienating to would-be supporters. They argue that there are other ways to combat indifference that are much less likely to turn people against us. I agree. But for now, I think that this sort of confrontation is a promising tactic for generating a public conversation about the hidden horrors of speciesism, and for demonstrating the moral urgency of the situation in a way that is not achieved by less confrontational actions.

Finally, in spite of my uncertainty about the different tactics of the animal rights movement, I am confident about some things: we are going to win, and it’s going to happen sooner than anybody thinks.


You Can Have Your Animal Rights and Eat Them Too

“Nobody can advocate for animal liberation unless they go vegan first!”

– agribusiness marketing professional

You don’t need to be vegan to advocate for animal rights. If I were in the animals’ situation, I would want everyone to share my story, even if they were partly responsible for my suffering. It might seem absurd for someone to argue for animals’ right to live while continuing to eat them, but in a world where eating tortured animals’ bodies is considered compassionate behavior, absurdity is never far away. We live in a world where it can be difficult for us to live in accordance with our values. We ought to accept that and figure out what to do about it. I believe that means embracing people with the right values, if not the best behavior, into my organizing efforts.

A revolution for animals begins with recognizing this injustice as a social and systemic problem, not just an aggregation of personal failings. If we want to win for the animals, we’re going to have to include people like my friend, who genuinely wants society to stop killing animals but still eats their bodies. She, like many others I know, feels awful about this and she’s trying to stop. But she is poor, and tired, and old, and lonely, and imperfect. And in spite of all of that she still speaks out for them. As far as I’m concerned, if you would stop her from going out to ask the world to stop killing animals just because she is complicit in that harm, then you might as well slaughter the animals yourself.

Yes, I think you should be vegan. And yes, I think you’ll be a more credible and convincing advocate if you are. But let me be clear, I would take an animal-eating activist any day over a strict vegan whose “advocacy” consists of buying “cruelty-free” toothpaste at Whole Foods.

This is a real problem for our movement. All the time, people tell me things like “I wanted to go to your meeting, but I’m not vegan” or “I wanted to say something but I’m not vegan” or I wanted to share your post, but I’m not vegan.” We have to change this. I will not perpetuate a climate where my allies are afraid to speak out and join the cause, out of fear of being branded as hypocrites. If you can talk about speciesism at the family dinner table, the classroom, or the Facebook wall, then you’re welcome here, no matter what any of the ingredient-memorizing vegan policemen might say. We’re going to win this fight together—with a lot of help from others who love animals but struggle to be vegan in a non-vegan world. That’s why we are going to make the world vegan, not one-by-one, but collectively. 

Imagine if the abolitionist movement didn’t allow anyone to speak out against slavery unless they completely boycotted slave-made goods. If they did, I’m not sure they would have succeeded in abolishing  slavery. The fact that most of us have never even heard of the “Free Produce Movement” (which promoted a boycott of slave-made products) is a testament to the fact that consumer “activism” is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to dismantling oppressive institutions. Joining in boycotts should not be a requirement for participating in the myriad other forms of advocacy.

Of course, while I hope my criticism is taken seriously by animal rights activists, I think the real blame for this problem lies elsewhere. After all, this norm of dismissing sincere but imperfect dissenters as “hypocrites” was not created by vegans. In the animal rights context, this vile rhetorical strategy is most commonly employed by non-vegans, who seek to delegitimize vegans’ sincere effort to do better while justifying their continued apathy towards the problem. For example, by pointing out all of vegans’ inadequacies (e.g. “but you still eat wheat which kills field mice!”), we all know that what they’re really saying is “I don’t want to change my behavior, leave me alone.” It’s obvious that this “gotcha anti-veganism”  is merely an attempt to convince us that doing nothing is the best alternative to perfection.

We don’t let the haters distract us in that context; but this rhetoric seems to have an insidious effect when it comes to activists’ unwelcoming approach to non-vegan allies. We have to realize this is precisely what those who oppose us would hope for. If I were Tyson or Cargill, I would rejoice every time someone didn’t show up to a protest because they weren’t vegan. I would be laughing myself all the way to the bank.

This all or nothing rhetoric is used to delegitimize and stymie all sorts of progressive social changes. Just think of how people who have no serious commitment to fighting poverty of any kind, say things like, “there are poor white folks in this country too,” when you’re trying to have a conversation about economic justice for black people. Again, this idea that “you can’t do anything unless you do everything” is designed to deflect demands for change and preserve the status quo. So my message to anyone who is still listening: Don’t let anyone tell you that doing nothing is better than doing something. And don’t listen to anyone that says you have to be perfect before you challenge injustice. That’s the rhetoric of privilege from someone who likes things just the way they are.

Finally, please don’t confuse this for gradualism or moderation. It’s the opposite: I fully intend to see a law passed in my lifetime that prohibits violence against animals; and that means we urgently need people to be speak out and confront this injustice now. So remember, for anyone out there who supports radical change for animals, I salute you and I hope you spread the word—whether you’re vegan or not.*

*Although I can’t promise that I won’t bother you about it from time to time.

P.S.: thanks to Wayne Hsiung and DxE for inspiring much of my thinking in this area:


Chickens and Other Endangered Species

broiler chicken

Are chickens an endangered species?

Today I saw the documentary Racing Extinction, which focuses on how climate change and the (sometimes) illegal wildlife trade are contributing to one of the largest mass extinction events in world history. It was extremely powerful. I cried…twice. They did a great job of portraying the stories of animals as individuals whose lives matter, not merely as tokens/exemplars of a species.

In one scene, they showed a shark stuck on the ocean floor, struggling to move. Her fins were cut off and she was completely helpless. It was agonizing to watch; knowing that she wanted to move, and thinking about the fear and confusion she must have felt by being immobilized. With this in mind, I have to ask: Does it really matter how many other sharks there are like her? When you are watching an animal being tortured, do you need to research her species and its population size to decide whether or not you should care? If we learned that the shark actually wasn’t from an endangered species, would it make a difference? Well, it definitely wouldn’t make a difference for the shark.

I can’t help but think that the documentary was somewhat confused and contradictory in this regard. Clearly, the activists in the film were deeply affected by the suffering of many of these animals–not about the species as an abstraction–but the actual lives of the individual animals. They were moved to tears by the horrors they saw. But then at other points, it seemed that their main concern wasn’t with the animals themselves, but the idea/form of the species as a whole. The worst example of this was the director’s joyful account of watching a tuna being ripped apart by a shark. I was horrified. One second he was literally crying about a dying fish, and the next he was smiling about it. Again, neither the tuna, nor the shark, knows nor cares about their status on the endangered species list. Similarly, the tuna presumably does not care whether he is being mutilated by a human being or a whale shark. I wouldn’t.*

A species doesn’t feel pain. It doesn’t feel join, or excitement, or fear, or anything. A species doesn’t want to avoid extinction. It doesn’t want anything. Species is a human construct: an idea, a way of categorizing real living beings (that do feel things and do seek to avoid death) in a way that helps us better make sense of the world. In that way, a species is like a baseball team. Just like a species, a baseball team doesn’t feel anything, even though it is comprised of players who do. This similarity to baseball teams is precisely why we shouldn’t care about species too much– not because baseball is really boring, which is objectively the case–but because baseball teams don’t feel anything. Let me explain: if everyone on the Yankees died in a plane crash and the franchise went out of business, it would be a great tragedy. It would be awful because all of these people would have suffered through the fear and horror of a crashing plane. It would be horrible that all of these people who enjoyed their lives and wanted to keep living are gone. It would be terrible because of all of the suffering and loss their friends and family would endure. Now for some people, at least for Yankees fans, it would also be really sad that the Yankees went out of business  and are aren’t going to play anymore. But I hope you’ll agree that the bigger tragedy would be that these players lost their lives, even if the end of the team is also tragic.  It seems the same logic should apply to species. Just like the Yankees fans, even if we care about a species going extinct, we know the real tragedies are the suffering and death of all the animals that didn’t want to die, and the loss experienced by their friends and family.

So what does this have to do with chickens? Well, chickens are arguably the most horribly treated animals on the entire planet. Every year, tens of billions of them are slaughtered after living miserable lives in intensive industrial confinement. Their numbers are large but they are endangered in any meaningful sense of the word. The are in danger of breaking their bones under the weight of their genetically manipulated bodies. They are in danger of being boiled alive. They in danger of being trampled to death. They are in danger of starvation, disease, and abuse. But who is there to tell their story? Are their lives expendable or meaningless just because there are so many of them? Why won’t the Audubon Society put a chicken on the cover of their magazine? Why do they care so much about grasshopper sparrows and so little about chickens? Why don’t we cry for them? It’s so easy for us to condemn people for eating shark fin soup and whale sushi. It’s so easy for us to bash poachers and smugglers. But to the chicken who never knew anything but suffering, we are all poachers. No, we are worse than poachers. At least poachers don’t torture animals for months before they kill them. If we truly care about animals as individuals, not just the “teams” they play on, then we should fight for domesticated animals with the same urgency and intensity that we do for endangered species.

For now, every time I see a chicken, I can hear them say: “Can I be an endangered species too?”

* Even if it is an inevitable fact of life, being eaten alive certainly isn’t something to be celebrated. What sort of message does it send when we rejoice for this suffering and death? As long as their torturous deaths are viewed with fascination instead of mourning, I will not be surprised that their interests are not taken seriously. Just imagine if the director was killed by a shark and everyone just talked about how awesome it was. It would be reasonable to assume that, most likely, nobody really cared about him and he had a pretty tough and dangerous life. And for everyone that likes appealing to nature, it’s just as natural for humans to be eaten by animals. If you sincerely believe that it is also “beautiful” and “majestic” for humans to be eaten alive, then I won’t bother to convince you otherwise. But if you aren’t willing to bite that bullet, then you’ll have to admit that “natural” suffering and death  in the wild is a tragedy. If you don’t, then you’re just blinded by speciesism.