Only One Solution - Frequently Asked Questions

O.O.S - Frequently Asked Questions

Why not work hard to make a vegan world?

Because a vegan world is not possible and even if it was possible, unfortunately as dreamy and wonderful as it would be, a vegan world is far from a sufferingless world.

We’ll start with the impossibility.
Most humans haven’t even made much more basic ethical decisions. It is impossible to educate most humans to solve conflicts without violence, to not objectifying each other, to not discriminate each other on the basis of race, gender, ethnical orientation, class, weight, height, prettiness and etc and it is even hard to educate humans to recycle so there is no way of convincing them all to become vegans.

As you all know very well, it is not that they have to do something unusual or difficult, only to replace some of the ingredients in their food with some others. You know the facts and arguments, so many good reasons including egocentric ones to go vegan, but humans insist on systematically torturing non-human animals, spitting in the faces of a billion hungry people, harm their own health and leave their children a destroyed planet.
We find meat eating as the most classical characteristic of human nature - apathetic, impulsive, careless, selfish, narrow minded and without the slightest thought about future consequences.

We had thousands of conversations, we exposed the facts to thousands of people but only a very tiny fraction changed their habits in the end. Exposing the facts doesn’t convince most humans.
Humans prove again and again that their profits, taste preference, convenience, entertainment etc, are much more important to them than morality. Most of them are not even willing to hear the facts and listen to the arguments, not to mention stop financing animal abuse.

Have you ever thought why is it so hard to convince someone to go vegan?
The animal rights arguments are so simple and right. They are based on solid facts and evidences. Nobody can confront them rationally.
So why is it so hard to convince someone to go vegan? The reason is that reason is not enough. Good arguments are not relevant.
Rationality is not enough in this world. It has proved itself as an insufficient element in order to change people’s habits.
Rationality can’t beat motivation.

The fact that the arguments are so strong and so well-based but still fail again and again, is the exact thing that should wake you all. Animal rights activists shouldn’t get strengthen from their strong arguments but the other way around. When arguments that are so strong and so obvious don’t work there is something wrong with the addressees. It can’t be that the problem is always with the marketing, right? with the way we deliver our message, right? Years of campaigns, hundreds of organizations with dozens of methods and you don’t ask yourself how did we accomplish so little?
The problem is that rational arguments are not enough and most of the time they are not even relevant.

The tragical irony is that even when the animal rights movement gives up on the idea of developing caring towards nonhuman animals and turns to caring for the children’s future, using the "for the environment argument" or caring for their own kind using the "for the hungry" argument or caring for themselves - the hopelessness summit, using the "for your health" argument, it doesn’t help.
Nothing helps. Not even when the animal rights movement reaches the lowest point.

We feel ridiculous trying to convince you that there will never be a vegan world.
Wake up! Bullfights still exist and are still very popular.
For too many, the pain and the suffering of humans and non-humans, means nothing.
How dare they compare a bull's suffering to their brutal and repulsive tradition? However, they do. It is a fact. Nothing helps to stop it. Decades of campaigns ran by dozens of animal rights groups…but nothing helps.

While we are asking ourselves, when will "artificial insemination" be considered as rape and slaughter as murder, humans still seize rodeo, circuses and angling as sport and entertainment, a fox as a coat, a horse as transportation and a cow as the phase between grass and steak.

There will never be a vegan world but you can read in the Denmark Argument in the Manifest that during the First World War a whole country was vegan.

Ironically some activists use the Denmark example as a proof that a vegan world is possible. But there is no question that humans, and we mean all of them, can maintain a healthy, cheap, satiating - vegan diet. There is no doubt about that.
The question is not if they can, but if they will. And apparently they won’t.

In spite of the harsh conclusions you should infer from the Danish episode and from the fact that even the most selfish arguments are not working, we believe that the strongest case against the efforts to create a moral change in society based on humans' compassion, is the way humans treat members of their own species. Please take the time and read our articles about how humans treat half of their own species (The Wrong Gender) and their own posterity (To Their Own Flesh And Blood).
Of course it shouldn’t matter to what species someone belongs, but it does matter to them and still this is how they treat each other (Theres Always Money For Death And Destruction).

A vegan world is not possible and can be easily reversed as we saw in the Denmark example. But even if it was possible and permanent, a vegan world is not a sufferingless world.

Vegan diet is less harmful in an inexpressible way compared to animal based diet but it is not enough as it is harmful and therefore not a moral alternative.
When you are trying to convince someone to convert his diet to a vegan one, you are trying to cause him to stop taking part in horrible things and to take part in much less horrible things. You don’t change his consumption habits to moral and 100% cruelty free. Plant based diet is cruel. The fact that there are diets that are much crueler doesn’t make it moral.

No matter how little we will consume, we will cause suffering. Suffering is an inherent part of life. Soy is also murder. The ground that the soy is growing on used to be the home of millions of nonhuman animals throughout time. Everything that once grew there was pulled out, and herbicides and fungicides are constantly spread to make sure that nothing besides the specific desirable crop will grow on that land. Pesticides are also being used. Apples for example can be sprayed up to 16 times with 36 different pesticides, and they are not exceptional. Hundreds of different chemicals are regularly being used in agriculture. Those chemicals are stable and keep on contaminating ecological systems far after and far away from when and where they were first used.
Think you can avoid them by consuming organic food only? Unfortunately you can't.
Organic agriculture also uses many chemicals as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, which are still potent to the ones they are intended to harm and many others. The only difference is that those compounds (which all cause harms in the manufacture process and by being transported exactly like in the non-organic agriculture chemicals) are more "natural" and better decompose, as if it matters to the poisoned animal.

It suits meat eaters, not animal rights activists to be satisfied with the label "no pesticides", concluding that no actions were made to remove whom who gets near humans' "property".
"No pesticides" doesn’t mean no "pest" control methods such as biological extermination, leg traps, snare tarps, above den trap, smoke bombs, burrows fumigation, burrows foaming, flooding and everything that comes to the farmers mind. No inhibitions what so ever, not by the law and not by the conscience.

Being less productive, organic agriculture requires much more land to be "cleared", meaning more deforestation and more habitat destruction.
Furthermore, since the crops are less treated they are more vulnerable to the climate and are more depended on the soil type so the growth is limited to smaller and fitter areas even though the demand is worldwide, meaning much more transportation.
Another harmful consequence of the organic crops’ vulnerability is more packing, meaning more nylon, paper, plastic and etc and more of the packages manufacture harms mostly manifested in energy consumption, pollutants and eventually more waste.

Transportation plays a vital role all over the food production chain, not only when the product is finished and ready to be consumed. From transportation of the minerals that compose the fertilizers, later to be sent to the farmer, to the many raw materials, including the oil used at the processing stages, to the transportation of waste after consumption. On an international scale, the import and export of food has tripled in the past 20 years. Food is now the largest component of air freight, and air transport is the most polluting and least efficient form of transportation. A weekly basket of imported food (fruit and vegetables) could add to one ton of CO2 emissions.
When you buy a soyogurt made in belgium the strawberries can originate in russia, the soy from brazil, sugar from guatemala and the packaging plastics from china.

Today it is impossible to base all your diet on local food and even if you could, do you really believe you should spend your time on debating with your fellow vegans about what is less worse: buying a product from a local company that use animals tests for other products they sell or a product from a company that doesn’t use animals tests at all but their products are flown 150,000km to reach your local grocery store?
The suffering inflicted in animals test is more direct and perceptible so we guess you will pick the far distance non-tested products. We do too. But it is choosing between two evils and compromising on someone else’s suffering.

Most vegans don’t strictly stick to a purely raw diet and also consume processed foods. The manufacture of products that are considered basic such as: soy milk, sugar, tofu, bread, oil, tea and etc can include dozens of sub-processes like:
Cleaning and removing unwanted parts such as the outer layers, for example the skinning of peaches, separating the beans from the pod, extracting the interior such as seeds, mixing and macerating as in preserved fruits and vegetables, liquefaction and pressing as in fruit juices and soy milk production, fermentation like in soy sauces and tempeh, baking, boiling, broiling, frying, steaming, shipping of a number of ingredients from different distances, wrapping, labeling, transportation of waste and as mentioned earlier the transportation to the stores. All are inevitable. All are comfortably invisible as the finished product lies on the shelf.
Even if you are willing and sure that you are able to give up processed food as a whole, remember that everyone else must do it as well. Everyone, people who eat whatever they want whenever they want, people who don’t consider any ethical issues in their consumption choices, people who drive their SUVs on the way to the gourmet restaurant must adopt this diet as well. Do you see foie gras consumers eat only local, seasonal, non-wrapped, wind pollinated apples?

Let’s take for example the vegans’ ‘unofficial’ main food - tofu, and see how it is made:
After being cultivated, harvested and dried in the farm, the soybeans are then stocked in sacks and transported to the plant where the tofu is manufactured.
First the beans are soaked in water for about 13 hours. Then they are mashed using pureeing machines, and mixed with water into a slurry while heated to boiling temperature. The soy juice is extracted with a press, separating it from the pulp, which consists of the hull and fiber. This solid waste will be sold as cheap feed for livestock. The next stage of tofu production takes place after the juice from the soybean is pumped into curding vats, and a coagulating agent such as calcium sulfate, magnesium chloride, or nigari is mixed in. Then the curds are pressed, mostly by centrifuges or hydraulic presses. The whey drains off, leaving soft blocks of pressed curds. Cutters slice the big block of tofu into smaller ones, and those tofu blocks are washed in vats of cool water where they firm up and then stored. The tofu may be packaged into shrink-wrapped blocks or continuous thermo-form packages, then each is sealed, weighed, and dated. The packaged tofu is pasteurized at about 180°F (82°C) and then chilled again in water. Finally, the tofu is placed into boxes and shipped in refrigerated trucks (it must be kept refrigerated at below 45°F (7°C), or it would spoil) to distributors.

The list of harms in the plant based diet is endless. For a more complete picture please read Vegan Suffering. And for now we’ll finish with the inseparable connection between the honey industry and dozens of vegan food items taken from the article:
"75% of all food crops, including many fruits, vegetables and beans are made possible by pollinators, mostly insects. Honeybees are by far the most common pollinators, accounting for 90% of the pollination so that crops like almonds and apples are completely dependent on.

Farmers, who rely on factory-farmed honeybees for pollination, rent more than two million honeybee colonies every year in the US alone. The hives are transported by trucks mostly and sometimes by airplanes, from field to field according to blossom timings.

Honey production is valued at $157 million a year in the US while the value of the food crops pollinated by honey-bees reaches $15 billion every year.
In economic terms it means that honey is strictly a sideline activity. Beekeepers earn much more from renting "their" bees for pollination than they do from honey production.
In other words the two industries heavily rely on one another in a mutual dependence. And so ironically vegan food is what keeps the beekeeping business the profitable industry it is.
Vegan food is grown on the expense of billions upon billions of bees, that go through routine examination and handling, artificial feeding regimes, drug and pesticide treatment, genetic manipulation, artificial insemination, smoking, air blasting, transportation (by air, rail and road), starvation and slaughter."

In your ideal world everybody grow their own food and so don’t use any means of disinfestation, no packing, no further processing and no transportation but that can only be technically relevant for a relatively tiny group of people. The global course is exactly the opposite. More urbanization, more huge supermarkets and less small retails, more industrial food, more corporate rule over every existing plant, more chemicals inside the food and inside the land it grew on, more packages, much more transportation and etc.

Not only that less and less people in Asia, the most populated continent in the world with more than 60% of all humans, grow their on food, the fast urbanization process the Asians undergo highly increases their per capita animal consumption.
Animal consumption is growing rapidly and persistently all over the world. The world per capita consumption has more than doubled over the last 40 years and in the developing countries it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.
The per capita meat and milk consumption is rising fastest in regions where urbanization and rapid income growth take place. Asia’s economic growth has resulted in quick wage increases, which have created a growing middle class in several of the large transitional economies. Income increase quickly spurs demand for more expensive food, such as meat and dairy products.
As populations move from rural to urban areas, structural shifts in food demand patterns occur because a wider choice of foods is available in urban markets, because people are exposed to a variety of dietary patterns from foreign cultures, because urban lifestyles prioritize on foods that require less time to prepare and because urban residents do not grow their own food.

The population growth, urbanization and income growth that fueled the increase in meat and milk consumption are expected to intensively continue in the next decades, creating a veritable Livestock Revolution. As these events unfold, many people's diets will change and many more animals will suffer.
People in developing countries currently consume on average one-third the meat and one-quarter of the milk products per capita compared to the richer North, but this is changing rapidly. More people everywhere are eating more animal products as soon as their incomes rise above poverty level. The animal rights movement can’t deal with the current enormous amounts of exploited animals and it will only get worse. In the future many more animals will suffer much more.

China plays the most dominant role in the animal consumption increase with its meteoric meat consumption increase which began in the early 1980s. In 1983 the meat consumption was 16 kilograms per person per year, 25 kilograms per person by 1995, 31 kilograms by 1999, 50 kilograms by 2000, and now is 53 kilograms per person. That’s a 12% increase per year on a per capita basis, a threefold increase in less than 25 years and double in ten years.

The global consumption of milk drinks has risen by 13% from 214 billion liters in 2002 to 242 billion liters in 2007. Asia has seen the most consistent growth, mainly due to the booming demand in China. Cheese is making inroads as well, as many chinese take on westernized eating habits, and so the global milk drinks volumes is forecast to rise by 20% until 2012.
India, the second most populated country in the world, has fourfold its milk consumption since 1970 jumping from 21 million to 87 million tons. In 1997, India overtook the United States in dairy production, making it the world’s leading producer of milk and other dairy products.
As well as in Asia, milk growth consumption is also expected to expand in many South American countries such as in Argentina – 8%, Brazil – 3%, Uruguay 4%, Venezuela 6% and Chile 4%.

In late 2007 the chinese government came out with a new set of nutritional guidelines that encourage citizens to consume 300 grams of dairy per day - nearly a five-fold increase over current consumption in the urban areas. Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jinbao visited a dairy farm in the Sichuan Province and proclaimed that he has a dream to provide all Chinese, especially children, with a half a kilogram of milk per day.
As you can see in the following graph regarding the 2006 consumption data (before his statement), the per capita consumption has more than tripled in the last decade. If Jinbao’s dream comes true it will boost the current consumption amount by seven and a half times.

This is the horrible world we live in, activists campaigning against the dairy industry for decades as hard as they can, and one person in one statement triples the expected milk production in the most populated country in the world in just a few years.
One politician’s dream is millions of cows’ nightmare.

Egg production has increased in the United States, Japan, India, and Mexico over the past four decades, most of the growth has been due to a 10-fold increase in eggs consumption in developing countries as a result of rising incomes and growing populations.
Between 1990 and 2005, China accounted for 64% of the growth in world egg production. By 2005 this one country produced nearly 44% of the world’s eggs - 28.7 million tons - more than five times as many as the next largest producer. And this trend is expected to continue, with output predicted to rise by 23% by 2015.
Most egg production in China has transitioned from traditional, scattered, backyard farms to large-scale integrated operations. While small farmers once produced most of the eggs for markets for local consumers, huge, intensive warehouse-like battery cage facilities have become the norm and are encouraged by chinese egg industry leaders and the government who subsidies the industrial large-scale farms.
In addition china particularly and Asia in general is where western large-scale egg producers are looking, where they can conduct business with little "interference" such as welfare regulations and environmental restrictions.

It is frightening to think how much animal suffering increased since Animal Liberation was first published. The global pigs meat production increased almost 3 times, egg production 4 times and chickens meat production by more than 5 times.
The meat consumption per capita has increased in all countries in the world with no exceptions. The per capita demand in Asia has almost quadrupled since 1975.
The Middle Income Countries have triple their meat consumption since 1975 and it's now standing on about 50kg on average. China’s meat per capita consumption was quintupled since Animal Liberation was first published. And maybe the most freighting figure is that what is called developing countries are already catching up with the average global consumption and they were standing on third of today’s amount just in 1975. These countries also hold the highest population growth rate.

The future is not auspicious. The proportion between the number of humans who are potential animal rights supporters and potential vegans, and the number of humans who are not, will be even worse in the future.
In many cases the ones with the potential are against breeding or at least procreate "only" once or twice, as opposed to humans who are not animal rights potentials, which are the vast majority of the world anyway, that usually procreate at least 4 times in their life time. In a lot of cases even more.
In rough generalization, as far as humans are distant from animal rights, human rights and environmental "issues", the more they procreate and vice versa. Therefore even the opposition to relatively small scale industries like veal calves, will be harder in the future.

The human population is growing rapidly. Every second, 5 more humans are born. The suffering in the world is growing nominatively to the human population growth. Reducing the number of humans will necessarily reduce the amounts of suffering.

The total animal products consumption has almost tripled since animal liberation was written. It’s the human population, urbanization, increase in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the price of grain and diseases like Avian Influenza and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) that determine the number of exploited animals, not the animal rights movement. No point in dreaming of a vegan world when the global course is the exact opposite.

Time is our greatest enemy. Every second that life continues is extreme suffering for billions of creatures.

It is very hard for us to refer to factory farms which are the vastest exploitation systems ever created in the world, as symptoms but that is what they are, symptoms. And the only way to stop the symptoms of the problem is to identify the main root cause and directly work to abolish it.

Veganism is not the goal. Apparently it needs to be reminded to animal rights activists all the time. The problem is not what people eat, it is what people think. You haven’t started your activism in the animal rights movement in order to change people’s diet. It wasn’t people’s diet that bothered you it was the suffering, right? The oil industry, the logging industry, steel, wood, plastic, nylon, cars, roads, concrete, cosmetics, electricity and as we showed here, every vegan food industry causes suffering too. If a vegan world was possible it would have been great compared to our current world, but it is not possible and even if it was possible it wouldn’t be a sufferingless world. And that is what moral people should wish for.

Our question to you is why working on a vegan world when you can work on a sufferingless world?
If you only wish for a better world, you can leave our website and continue with your current activity. If you wish to stop the suffering, leave your current activity and establish your own stopping all the suffering team.

Isn’t it an exaggeration?

You get furious when you are called extremists don’t you? "The situation is extreme!" you say, "The ones who are trying to change it are the only sane people around…"
So we’ll answer in the same manner…

Tearing slices off gazelles while they are still alive, trying to escape is an exaggeration
Slowly digest someone after swallowing him wholly is an exaggeration
Killing someone else’s offspring to spread your own genes instead is an exaggeration
Injecting eggs into a live spider’s body to ensure that when the descendants hatch they will have breakfast is an exaggeration
Powerfully horning other males for territory and for the "right" to mate is an exaggeration
Chemically liquefy other insects before eating them is an exaggeration.

A 15 meters wide monstrous black tide of around 100,000 driver ants warriors, working mutually as a single hunting unit swarming into any opening in the body of their prey (rats, scorpions, lizards and even young birds that are unable to fly), including the mouth and nose, suffocating or devouring them alive, is an exaggeration.

Skunks come at night to caves full with bats knowing that sooner or later in such a crowed some will lose their grip and since baby bats are still unable to fly at their early age they fall on the cave’s ground and are totally helpless, they are easy prey.
The cave is totally dark so the skunks don’t see the fallen baby bat, they also can’t hear them because of the strong shrieks of the millions of other bats and they can’t smell them as well because of the strong ammonia odder so they actually grope handing the cave until they bump into one and since they don’t see where the head is, to avoid a bite they role the baby bats on the ground over and over until they die. That is an exaggeration.

Letting the U.S south east coast dolphins continue with their horrible fishing tactics of swiping fish into the riverbanks dooming them to death by suffocation and severe stress resulting from the rapid lift from water to land is an exaggeration.
Another cruel hunting method the dolphins use is circulating sardine fish driving them to swim against the water surface and against the stream, making a giant meat ball of sardines and then starting eating from it. If that is not exaggerated enough, birds who learned to interpret this dolphin behavior soon join the feast and eat the sardines from above too.

Octopuses use their eight sucker-lined arms to capture their prey (mostly bottom-dwelling crustaceans and fish), pierce the shells and inject poison that causes paralysis. The venom contains some maculotoxin, a poison more violent than any found on land animals. It contains tetrodotoxin, which blocks sodium channels and causes motor paralysis and occasionally respiratory failure. The senses of the prey are often intact, meaning the victims are aware and remain fully conscious but unable to respond. Then the octopuses release salivary enzymes, loosening the meat from the inner shell and then use their hard, parrot-like beaks to tear pieces of meat. If this is not one of the most exaggerated methods of absorbing energy then what is?

Now you’ll decide what is more exaggerated:
The sand swimmer mole which drown ants in the sand and eats them, the star nose mole which has 22 fleshy arms each packed with 50 nerve endings and can locate insects underground very easily, the Giant Anteater who don’t eat termites but actually drinks them from their giant nests with his tongue or the pangolin who eats a whole ant nest with the thousands of ants in it?
Just 4 examples of one type of predator - insects hunter.

Male angonoka tortoise trying to flip one another over their backs when fighting over mating rights is an exaggeration. After one succeeded he will sometimes bite the legs of the loser before he leaves him there to be boiled alive while he will mate with the female.

To let the notorious insects wars go on is an exaggeration. Every spring in the island Honshu in japan wars between honeybees and hornets occur. The imported european honeybees who were brought to japan especially to pollinate crops, don’t stand a chance against the giant hornets, but the local honeybees developed ferocious defensive attack against the hornet scout who searches for beehive. Usually when she finds one she chemically marks it and get back to her hive to bring the troops who’ll destroy the colony and steal the honey, but the honeybees seduce the scout with special chemical and ambush her inside the hive. Intensely buzzing around her they rise the temperature up to 47 degrees which boil the hornet alive. That’s just one example out of thousands of chemical wars between insects.

And if we’ve mentioned wasps…
20 larvas slowly slicing a caterpillar’s skin from the inside out after their mother wasp has injected them in the form of eggs into his body so they can have constant supply of food when they hatch inside him, is an exaggeration.
And it even goes further than that, as to protect the eggs the wasp inject a virus she produce in her ovaries that destroys the caterpillars’ immune system and if it is not exaggerated enough the wasp also inject a certain chemical that cause the caterpillar to protect the larvas while they cocoon themselves until he dies of hunger or disease since his immune system is destroyed.

These are just a few specimens of the world you refuse to destroy. And that’s without a word of how insane factory farms are, how sadistic experiments are, how abusing circuses are, how madden fur farms are, how violent bullfights and rodeos are, how stressful zoos are and etc. because we focused on examples which are part of the world you long for, totally ignoring the impossibility of reaching a non-speciesist world.

But it is an exaggeration to expect humans who are so far from finding a sustainable, rational, equalitarian and non-discriminative political, social and economic way to live with each other in the same country! Not to mention with their whole species (there is always a war going on somewhere in the world. More than three new wars every year), so settling the relationships with other species on the base of equal consideration of interests?!

It is an exaggeration to draw hopes from the liberation of the African slaves, because for one there is no compression since the animals cannot fight for themselves, the level of carnage suffered by the animals is infinitely greater than anything experienced by humans and because the value of the victims is much lower (humans have absolute control over the reproduction of entire populations, they mass-produce creatures to mass-murder them) and second because slavery was never ended! There are more slaves in the world today than ever before in history.

It is an exaggeration to invest so much time in stopping bullfighting – just one industry and not particularly big, in one country only, and it is much more of an exaggeration to keep believing it is possible to stop all the industries in all the countries after failing.

To continue with the efforts to convince humans to stop consuming animal products because it hurts animals while they don’t stop even when it kills them and their families, while they eat whatever they want whenever they want, keep on smoking even though they know it hurts them and their own children, don’t exercise, eat tons of sugar, fat and cholesterol, are too lazy to do something so easy and undemanding like recycling, while most are still racist, sexist and chauvinist, is an exaggeration.

But even if we will exaggerate for a moment and say that it is possible to make a vegan world it would still be an exaggeration to expect humans to absorb energy out of nothing and so even if a vegan world was possible… Poisoning the world while producing energy is an exaggeration. And more than 2.5 million tons are used each year. 10 or more cycles of pesticide sprays during one crop cycle are not uncommon, and sometimes the seeds are even sprayed before planting. Today it is estimated that the agricultural chemical industry is producing about 50,000 different pesticides based on approximately 600 active ingredients.

The methods farmers use to defend crops are an exaggeration and the diversity is scary. From the common leg trap that snaps as someone tread upon it, to creative mechanisms that shoot sharp spears once triggered, scissor-like knifes that shuts firmly or a noose-like loop that tightens and chokes. Burrows are attacked by varied toxic gases, liquids called fumigants and also with foaming agents which are pumped into the burrow system, quickly filling it entirely. Smoke bombs are also very common, and even flammable gases such as propane and oxygen are injected with a hose into the burrows and then ignited.
Flooding or burning fields after harvest are also common.
But the most "exaggerated" variation of "pest control" takes place in sugar-cane fields (Since they are protected from burning by a very moist tissue) where the farmers begin to harvest the field on all sides going from the ends to the center, so many animals are packed at the last square. Then they burn the area while surrounding it with tractors, pickaxes, listers, mattocks, pitchforks and etc. The animals that were able to escape the flames, the smoke and the tractors, are clubbed to death by the farmers.

You all know about leather, fur and wool but did you know that cotton is the most pesticide-dependent crop in the world, accounting for up to 25% of all pesticide use?
In one year alone over 50 million pounds of pesticides are used on U.S. cotton fields.
Every T-shirt made of conventional cotton requires 1/4 pound of poison. It is not as bad as wool and fur but isn’t it an exaggeration?

It is an exaggeration to expect of the plant based agriculture to feed the whole world using only wild pollination methods and the wind. It is not at all realistic and so even more honeybees will be exploited in the pollination industry which already exploits more than two million honeybee colonies per year in the US alone.
And forcing billions upon billions of bees, to go through routine examination and handling, artificial feeding regimes, drug and pesticide treatment, genetic manipulation, artificial insemination, smoking, air blasting, transportation (by air, rail and road), starvation and slaughter in order to grow vegan food is an exaggeration.

And it doesn’t sum up with food only. Everything humans do is an exaggeration.

Expecting humans to give up their cars because they may kill other humans is a serious exaggeration in their eyes so do it for squirrels, racoons and cats?

Treating the ocean like a giant dumpster is an exaggeration.

About 2,000 square feet as the average home size is an exaggeration.

Expecting humans to stop building shiny glassed reflected skyscrapers just because around one billion birds die in glass collisions every year, is an exaggeration. So does expecting them not to trim down city trees during the spring which is the height of the nesting season for most birds and squirrels and also the time when a tree is directing all of its energy into producing new growth. Asking them not to trim the trees at all and totally stop any building is not an exaggeration it is hallucination.

We also claim that it is the situation which is extreme.
There is nothing more exaggerated than life of suffering from birth to death of 100 billion creatures every year. So no, we are definitely not exaggerating.
Animal rights activism can’t achieve a non-speciesist world and even if it was achievable it would still be a sufferingfull world, food can’t be produced without hurting someone else, it is just impossible. Animal rights activism also totally ignores the innumerable and inapprehensible suffering that happens in every fraction of a second to millions of creatures by other non-human animals.
It is very cruel and cynical to think that it’s part of life so there is nothing we can do about it. The fact that all these atrocities, all this suffering, is part of life, is exactly the problem.
We can’t change the system, we can only eliminate it.
It is a sufferingfull or sufferingless world.
What will you choose?

I am sorry, I draw the line where there is violence

No, you think you draw the line where there is violence, but it’s an illusion. A very dangerous illusion that holds within it a very violent point of view.

First of all in this world there is no such thing as nonviolent approach. Nonviolent actions are maybe not violent towards animal abusers, but failing to stop the abusers the "nonviolent" approach is violent towards the abused animals.
If the only way to save someone from a life of constant misery and pain is to kill the one who is responsible for that misery, and you decide not to do it because you are against violence and murder, then you still just judged someone to a life full of violence and a murder.

We know it sounds a little corny and trite but hypothetically, if someday you incidentally see a well known serial killer trying to kill a little child (no one is innocent, but children are closer than most grownups) and you have with you a weapon (it is hypothetical remember), if you decide not to kill the serial killer – you are actually killing the child.
An average meat eater kills more animals during his life time, than any serial killer in history.
An American meat eater is responsible for the abuse and killing of nearly 3,400 animals within his/her lifetime, including 2,460 chickens, 800 fish, 96 turkeys, 32 pigs and sheep, and 12 calves. Refusing to kill him means he is worth the pain and suffering of all of them. Don’t fool yourselves. It’s simple math. If he stays alive – all these animals won't.
If you are not using violence to stop much more violence, you are actually supporting violence.

Like any other action, violence is a bad thing when it increases suffering and a good thing when it reduces suffering. When a meat eater vivisectionist dies it will probably reduce suffering, so it is a good thing. When a vegan animal rights activist dies it will probably increase suffering - therefore a bad thing.

Many activists' red line in their nonviolent approach is self defense. Isn’t that a little selfish to justify hurting someone in the name of self defense but not in the name of defending someone else?
Why a girl that hurts the one who is trying to rape her is doubtlessly right and will even be considered a hero but whom who will hurt poultry farmer or a milkman will be considered as felon? Without getting into the useless question of who suffers more, artificially inseminated cow or a raped woman, there is no doubt that someone who rapes a cow must be stopped.
The question of 'how' is important because the attacker’s suffering should be taken into consideration as well. He is also sensible and his suffering is bad as well. But still this question is secondary to the question - what is the fastest safest way to stop him.

The corny debates regarding the definition of violence arise all the time and the regular argument of the supporters is that harming exploitation equipment is not violence because equipment can’t feel pain and because it is justified since this equipment makes the harm possible. The first argument is of course very weak because the equipment is valuable to people who are hurt when it is damaged and what make this damage justified is the second argument. The fact that the damaged equipment is in fact tools of torture most certainly justifies the harm but it doesn’t make it a nonviolent action.
The thing is that violence is not an absolute bad. Only suffering is. If an action eventually reduces suffering, it is a moral action, regardless of the fact that violence occurred.
Activists call damaging something which is valuable to someone else nonviolent because of the unjustified good reputation nonviolence approach got among activists and also because of the fear of being caught as extreme and violent people. We hope we can change the wrongfully good reputation nonviolence has in this answer, but to the inner logic of the tactical argument we can relate. Our problem with this argument is its narrow scope which leads to inconsistency.

Destroyed equipment can be replaced relatively easy. It is effective because there is a price to the destroyed equipment but the real problem is in the mind of the abusers not in the tools they are using. Even if years of study are being destroyed it is more of a delay than a retraction.
Equipment is only equipment it is not the source of the problem. Most of the damage initiates in the minds of the abusers and still there is so little support in damaging the source of the problem. (Please notice that we don’t question the general effectiveness of breaking to animal exploitation facilities but just the equipment damaging, because it is in the center of the debate of what is violence and because there is no question regarding liberation operations and documenting actions effectiveness).
If the reasons for the denunciation are tactical than it is not relevant in the Only One Solution idea since there are no long range repercussions to consider. In the case of harming a vivisector there are repercussion on the movement and on public opinion so there is a reasonable reason to oppose such actions however in our option there won’t be any public so there are no long term effects, no tactics to consider. So how come the same argument that justifies harming something quit negligible as equipment is not valid in case of total annihilation which deals with the roots of the problem?

It is true that hurting someone by damaging things which are valuable to him can’t be compared with killing him, but mind that damaging some torture equipment can also not be compared with killing a vivisector in the sense of the chance to stop the relevant experiment.
And if you think that for every dead vivisector there will be another one ready to take his place we totally agree and that’s why we totally oppose killing individual animal abusers.

There are two important points that we feel it is crucial to explain. One is that on a practical level in the conventional movement, violence toward abusers isn’t necessarily effective in preventing suffering (probably the other way around). And two we are not suggesting killing non-vegan humans sporadically as part of our solution in no way.
That won't help. There are too many of them and too little of us.
And if we are on the matter and although in this point it's supposed to be pointing the obvious, we are not after revenge either. The idea is to find the fastest, easiest, simplest and with as little suffer as possible method to annihilate the human race and all the other sentient creatures. It is not anger. Not rage. But a rational solution to a very sad world.

Anyway the serial killer, the average American meat eater and the vivisector are extremely narrow examples, the reality goes much further than this and it is much more complicated.
The nonviolent approach is basically oxymoronic.
How can a nonviolent approach exist in a world based on violence? And we are not talking about news violence and not even about industrial exploitation of animals but about the inherent violence derivative from consuming energy.
How the nonviolent advocators are planning to absorb energy? Out of the nothing?
It is not possible for any creature to live on this planet without hurting someone else and this ambition is particularly absurd when it comes to humans who their footprint is with no comparison to any other creature, even vegans with very high environmental awareness.

It starts with land clearing which vegan credulously relate to cattle grazing only but deforestation is in fact also widely and massively done for many crops that most vegans consume on a daily basis like cotton and sugar (most of the vegan cloths are made of cotton and most of the processed food contains sugar), soy oil which is the most widely produced edible oil and palm oil which is the second most widely produced edible oil and is very important component in soaps and washing powders.
And that’s a very partial list. Avoiding any product that got any connection to deforestation is almost impossible.

Like deforestation, water use is also treated as another harm only non-vegans are responsible for, as if crops don't put a huge strain on water resources as well.
When you show the famous tables that compare the water use of producing one kilo of rice, soy and potatoes with chickens, pigs and cows meat, you show how more harmful they are not that vegan food is waterless. The fact that animal products consume much more water than vegan products makes them more violent than vegan products but it doesn’t make the vegan ones cruelty free.
And it is not only the measure it is the concept, the obvious control over the reasonably accessible fresh water, while other creatures are dried. It also deprives non-humans of food and cover as vegetation is also severely affected by the water scarcity.

The "no chemicals used" label on some food packages means (if it is not a lie) no spraying of chemicals on the crops but it doesn’t mean no Herbicides, no Fungicides, no Pesticides and no Insecticides were sprayed on the land that those crops grew on before they were seeded, to make sure nothing besides the specific desirable crop grows on that land.
Isn’t destroying other creatures' food source considered as violent?
When humans do it to each other as a tactic of enfeebling the home front during armed conflicts it is considered a war crime but when the victims are nonhumans it is a moral way to consume energy?!

Although intangible the violence in fertilizers use is unquestionable.
The leakage of fertilizers into the environment results in a nutrient overload of ecosystems. Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is a widespread problem in rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal oceans all over the world. It allows the algae population to increase, as a consequence of their bloom oxygen levels decline and eventually it leads to the suffocation of marine animals.

In the hopeless search for the oxymoronic sufferingless consumption, vegans tend to cling on to organic agriculture, disregarding (or prefer not to find out) the fact that chemicals as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are used for organic products as well, as long as they are natural degradable poisons (called Biopesticides). Do you think the poisoned animals are consoled by the fact that at least their poison will dismantle after it kills them?

So "No pesticides" doesn't mean no disinfestation and it definitely doesn’t mean no violence. Extremely violent pest control methods are commonly used by farmer protecting your crops and they include biological extermination, a violent repertory of traps, gassing, smoke bombing, fumigating and foaming burrows which are the farmers’ main target. Even flammable gases such as propane and oxygen are injected with a hose into the burrows and then ignited.
Flooding or burning fields after harvest are also common "pest control" methods. Many animals, mostly snakes and baby rodents, are simply drowned or burned alive.
Food items that their production includes these methods are marked with the label "no pesticides".

Since us vegans are particularly selective with what we consume, we are highly depended on world trade and global transportation. We won’t buy food from a company that involves with animal experiments, we won’t buy from huge corporations, we check whether the lecithin is animal derived, if the food coloring is not cochineal bugs or any other animal derived additives that some manufacture might use and of course no tinge with some egg, no gelatin to firm, no albumin to stick, no butter to "enrich" and etc. So in many cases vegans ought to buy from a very distant producer.
It is hard as it is even on a personal scale and for omnivores who don’t mind what’s in their food or what is it made of, to rely on local food only. On a general scale and for vegans particularly it is almost impossible. Of course some vegans make many of their food by themselves but can they be sure where the ingredients are from?

There is practically no food product, not even vegan, organic and not genetically modified that doesn’t go through at least two industrial stages, at least two packing stages, at least two transportation stages and much more cultivation stages. All that is without mentioning how much garbage humans throw into other creatures’ habitats, how they systematically pollute the whole planet and how both consistently intensify.
All that is without mentioning the inseparable connection between bees' exploitation and plant based diet and many other violent actions against other creatures which are inevitable while humans absorb energy. Please read vegan suffering for a complete picture.

Everything in life is on the expense of someone else. There is no way to avoid suffering causing. No matter how little we consume, we will cause suffering. There is no sufferingless consumption. By participating in this cruel system, we are simply letting someone else do the violent part for us.

Just as rights are not only totally non-realistic (and such a frail concept in a society where they are seemingly exist for decades and as a firm and significant feature of society but are systematically violated every second everywhere) but also theoretically not relevant, since there is a constant struggle between the world’s creatures over the same resources and the collisions of interests are on an every single second basis, so is the nonviolent approach and for the same reasons.
The constant struggle over the same resources and the fact that for many animals other animals are the resources themselves, is what makes violence inherent and inevitable. As long as there are sentient creatures on this planet, there will be violence, exploitation and suffering.

Don’t think classic predators only, think bottom of the ocean, think about the undergrowth, the underground, think of all the chemical wars between insects which are usually disregarded, think about every battle over every single crevice in our violent world.
Some creatures are based on violence and the rest are based on exploitation or at least indirect harm, but that’s pretty rare. If you think about herbivores consider that many of the species that probably come up to your mind endure the most violent inner-species battles for the right to mate, from beetles to turtles to musk and moose. The male Topis even use paint wars to intimidate their competitors covering their horns and faces with mud.

How do nonviolence advocators plan on convincing the male angonoka tortoises who flip one another over their backs when fighting over mating rights, leaving the loser to be boiled alive in the sun? Using Gandhi’s slogans?
We wouldn’t build on spiders knowing who Martin Luther King is so they probably indifferently continue to trap the nearby insects, butterflies, bees, and whoever is caught in their web, paralyze their muscles and liquefy them while they still in consciousness feel how they are slowly melt.

Most rodents don’t eat other animals but do fight each other violently over territories all the time. Adult female marmots for example severely beat their daughters if they got pregnant to cause them a miscarriage if the provisions are not sufficient.
We don’t think you can accept it because it is natural anyway, but if you see it in your own eyes and hear the young female’s screams you won’t be able to say "well, if there is not enough food around what can she do? It is a natural maternal defense…" You will say that this world is a giant hell.

Even what seems as a peaceful sunbathing of lizards is misleading.
Lizards choice of the pile of boulders they sit on is not random but involves with their rank, as the most dominant male gets the best pile of boulders after fighting over it as the rest are doing to get better piles.

In some cases it is habitat destruction that changes behavior patterns into extremely violent ones like in the case of baboons who were mostly vegetarians and since the forests they lived in were destroyed, have began to develop hunting techniques. They used to eat flowers and berries only but since most of them were gone with the forests which became grassland the baboons started to jump to the water in small groups and hunt flamingos with their hands and teeth.

With toque macaques for example lack of resources is not at all the case.
They maintain very stressful social lives with extremely harsh hierarchy and very prevalence violence outbreaks. Just one customary everyday example, when berries are stashed in the chick bags of a low rank macaque, a higher rank monkey can forcefully open the low rank's mouth and take what she/he wants from there. The low rank try to keep their mouth close but that's as far as their resistance goes because they know if they'll do more than that they will be beaten by the whole group. So they just sit downcastly waiting for the humiliation to end. Think how they feel, the conflict between their desire to keep their food and the fear of the consequence of challenging the strict hierarchy.
And the same goes for mating. Only the alpha male is allowed to mate so he intimidates everyone else and acquire some allies who keep the order. Secret love affairs by young males and females occur anyway because the alpha male some day will be replaced so the females mate with whom they think will be the next alpha male in order to grant their future young with higher rank. These meeting are held under severe intimidation and secrecy.
Like baboons (as can be seen in the article Non-speciesist suffering) all the toque macaques live in constant fear and severe stress. The alpha male fears to lose his mastery, his allies fear him as well as seeking the opportunity to replace him, the females fear for their young looking for the next alpha male while fearing the current one, low ranks fear high ranks and the other way around since things can one day reverse. These are lives under constant terror.

Lives under constant terror are also the fate of one of the most favorite animals - the meerkats. Like the dolphins the meerkats’ adorable appearance disguises extremely violent creatures who live in extremely violent societies.
Besides tearing apart dozens of scorpions a day (they can’t gain extra body fat so they eat very frequently), they are also very territorial and so will savagely fight other groups.
Usually only the alpha pair reserves the right to mate and "normally" they kill any young not their own, to ensure that their offspring has the best chance of survival. When they don’t kill them they violently evict their mothers out of the group. Subordinate meerkats have been seen killing the offspring of more senior members in order to improve their own offspring's position.
In some social structures, usually when the alpha females dies, pregnant females tend to kill and eat any pups born to other females to inherit her position.

The meerkats are not unique, in many species there is lot of violence involving ancestry and in some species the violence begins in the womb. Some types of sharks perform embryonic cannibalism as the first embryo to grow teeth eats his sisters and brothers inside the womb. This brutal violent behavior is subsequent to another brutal violent behavior –rape. The male shark chases a female beating and biting her until he manages to turn her over and penetrate one of his two claspers under his belly and shut a ball of sperm into her. This will happen several times with several different males.

In many bird species violent nesting is awfully common.
Black-headed gulls nest in large colonies when the nests are only a few feet apart. When the chicks first hatch, they are small and defenseless and easy to swallow. It is quite common for a Black-headed gull to wait until neighbor gulls leave their nest to search for food and then pounce on one of the neighbor’s chicks and eat him, obtaining food without having to go to the trouble of catching a fish, and without having to leave his own nest unprotected.

So many species have an awfully violent courtship behavior, many have an awfully violent mating behavior, many have an awfully violent nesting behavior and sharks have an awfully violent pregnancy. Besides awfully violent pregnancy, wasps also have an awfully violent "birth".
There are many types of parasitic wasps that inject their eggs inside other creatures’ bodies that are then used as surrogate wombs for the wasp’s descendants. Common victims are spiders, aphides, moth and caterpillars which their case is probably the worst as they are fully conscious while 20 wasp larvas are slowly slicing their skin from the inside out when they are ready to transform to their next phase. Their mother also injects a virus she produce in her ovaries that destroys the caterpillars’ immune system to protect her eggs and a certain chemical that cause the caterpillar to protect the larvas while they cocoon themselves and while they are in their cocoons and until he dies of hunger or disease since his immune system is destroyed.

Life is full of violence. Nonviolent life is an oxymoron.
When it comes to non-humans inter-violence, activists tend to choose the passiveness approach even though it doesn’t exist. Passiveness against violence is just as much of a decision as activeness. Just as much it curries consequences. Passiveness is tolerance toward violence and suffering. It is actually and actively approving the current state of affairs. So there is no passive state. Passivism is actively deciding not to interfere.
The "passivists" know what is going on and decide not to stop it. They choose just as much.

Rights are a fictive concept and so is the nonviolent approach. It’s barley relevant when the victimizers and the victims are humans so it is defiantly not relevant when the victims are nonhumans. And it is absolutely not relevant when the victimizers and the victims are nonhumans.
Life is full of pain, fear and suffering for each living creature without even the theoretical possibility to avoid it. You know that as well as we do. If you don’t stop it you support it. If you choose to let this world continue, you knowingly choose not to stop all the violence that happens in it. It’s choosing to be violent, not nonviolent.
Nonviolent approach doesn’t exist. If you keep that dogma, you do it for yourself, not for the animals.
Since violence is an inherent part of life, you actually can’t simultaneously be nonviolent and annihilation opposer. It is an oxymoron. If you support the inherently violent life, in spite of your pseudo nonviolent approach you inherently support violence even if it is against your will.

When you know violence is integral part of life, when violence is inevitable to life, the only way to be nonviolent is to stop life.

But life is not only suffering, there are good parts too

Not if you are a farm animal.
Life is suffering from birth to death to most of the creatures in the world. People who state that kind of declaration are obviously speciesists and anthropocentric. If they were analyzing life from all earth’s creatures’ point of view, they would never have stated such a claim.

Imagine a situation in which over 90% of the people in the world are crippled who suffer from constant pain for about half of their life time.
A global nightmare!
Our real world is much worse than the one you have just imagined.
This is an every day reality for a population which is 8 times larger than the human one, annually!
This is the reality of 90% of the chickens raised for meat.

If you object the idea because life has its good parts too, we ask you to observe things from the point of view of one spermatozoon. What are the chances of the newborn baby to be happy?
Most humans think about life and about happiness from a human perspective only.
Well the chances of the one spermatozoon to be a happy human are not so good.
There is a 50% chance it will be a woman. Of course it doesn’t mean she can’t be happy, but it means she will be automatically and systematically discriminated against for her entire life just because of her gender. There is a 25% chance that a female will experience some sort of sexual abuse.
It has 12% chance to be white. 6% chance to be a white male. And less than 3% chance to be a white male in a western country.
It has more than 50% chances to be very poor.
The spermatozoon has a 20% chance to live with lack of safe drinking water and 30% chance to live without water for basic hygiene. 18% chance it will suffer from hunger. 30% chance it will be anemic. 25% chance it will live in dangerous, unstable situations. 20% chance it will be illiterate. 30% chance it will be in a constant risk of getting malaria. 40% chance it will be at risk from dengue.
The list never really ends. There are so many suffering causes and that is when the spermatozoon turned to be the best protected animal – human. Humans live like kings compared to non-human animals. Things get significantly worse when we calculate the spermatozoon chances to be happy if it turns to be ANY creature in the world.
The spermatozoon’s chances to become a farm animal are more than 714 times the chances it will become human.

Suffering is an inherent part of life. Choosing life is choosing suffering. The math is very simple. Most of the creatures suffering most of the time. A non-speciesist perspective, a point of view that doesn’t favor the interests of one species over another, necessarily leads to the conclusion that this world has to be stopped. Considering the amounts of suffering in the world, it has to be done as soon as possible and by all means.

What kind of a world do you prefer?
A world in which there is not even one suffering creature (not to mention hundreds of billions), and a much lower number of creatures that life and pleasure were prevented from them but they are not aware of that because they were never even born (it is not as if they are sitting somewhere frustrated, pity themselves over what they have missed. They were never born, therefore don’t know what was deprived of them, good or bad).
Or a world in which billions of creatures are daily tortured in order that a much smaller amount of creatures will be able to live comfortably, procreate and enjoy themselves?

The mechanism of life is rotten from its roots. No argument will make it prettier.

Social revolutions are possible. Don’t you believe a revolution in the way society seize nonhuman animals is possible?

Many activists are encouraged by the liberation of the African slaves, because of the similarities between that struggle and the animal liberation struggle. Well, there are many differences too.
First and most important, the animals cannot fight against human’s tyranny by themselves, they need other humans to help them.
Secondly, the exploitation is unproportionately larger. Thousands of people may die for a cause, for liberty or self-determination but billions of animals are systematically, thoughtlessly and brutally exploited every year, which translates into millions each day!
Thirdly, all humans are the oppressors, even us vegans.
And finally, the value of the victims is much lower. The level of carnage suffered by the animals is infinitely greater than anything experienced by humans. Violent oppression, imprisonment, forced labor, slavery and even ethnic purification are all human phenomenon as well, but an artificial selection to enlarge specific profitable organs on the expense of other vital organs is not recorded yet among humans. Slaves were picked in auctions by their size but it cannot be compared with the genetic manipulations on an entire species and definitely not with creating a species for specific functions like was done with cows, sheep and chickens in the food industry and with transgenic "lab animals", manipulations which are still intensified all the time. A hereditary distortion was never caused among humans.
Humans have absolute control over the reproduction of entire populations and entire species. They mass-produce creatures to mass-murder them. And that is a huge difference.
Throughout history hundreds of millions of humans were and still are exploited in several ways, mostly as a work source and as sex objects, but as opposed to nonhumans, they were never the raw material itself. Animals are bred for slaughter, fed for slaughter and led to slaughter. The level of oppression experienced by animals is greater, more pervasive and longer in existence than any human oppression against other humans.

These are just part of the reasons why it is not reasonable to draw hopes from the anti-slavery struggle. But the main one is simple and very sad - slavery was never ended.
"No-one shall be held in slavery and servitude", says the universal declaration of human rights. However, there are more slaves in the world today than ever before in history, and yet, most people are not aware of this fact. In part, this is because modern-day slavery does not fit our familiar images of shackles, whips and auctions.
Contemporary forms of human bondage include: forced labor, servile marriage, debt bondage, child labor and forced prostitution. Modern slaves can be concubines, shoe makers, cane cutters, carpets weavers or roads builders.
Though the vast majority is no longer sold at public auction, today's slaves are often no better off than their more familiar predecessors. On the contrary, in many cases, their lives are more brutal and hazardous.

Apartheid is not over either, it has changed to the world debt and the related "structural adjustment programs" (For further reading please read More than ever before in history and Compassion spin in the article section).

A very common way to explain what the animal rights idea stands for is using an analogy to the moral state of children. Children are seized, through the eyes of society, as an inseparable part of the moral community but also as ones who don’t have the obligation to behave in moral standards because they still lack the understanding of moral behavior, therefore they can’t take responsibility for their actions. They are defined as "moral patients" and not as "moral agents", which means they deserve moral treatment but are not obligated to carry it out.
Some animal rights activists claim that animals deserve the same moral status as children because of the obvious similarities and because the differences are not relevant in a moral context. Therefore animals are moral patients but not moral agents. They should be in the moral community. Theoretically we agree, however we have some fundamental problems with the statement - treat animals as children.

Let’s see how children are treated in this world:
Approximately 540 million children in the world (1 in 4) live in dangerous, unstable situations.
More than half of the children that live in conflict zones witnessed a murder.
Half of them were held in a position, in which they thought they were going to die.
However, the most dangerous arena for children is the one place that is supposed to be the safest, their own home.
The rates of all kinds of sexual abuses are terrifying. Approximately 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men report a history of some form of childhood sexual abuse. (For further reading please read To Their Own Flesh And Blood in the article section).
Humans have failed in ensuring that children have access to education, health services and basic protection. The human race can’t even carry out its most basic mission - to insure a safe life for its own offspring.

In this world you can’t afford to be weak. Children are systematically exploited all over the world. Is this what we ask for animals?
Is this our model?
There is no doubt that the state of animals will fundamentally improve if it will be the same as the state of children but, why are you compromising on "less suffering" when you can end it all?

Human’s priorities among their own species are scary. They leave no hope for the nonhumans. It is estimated that $50 billion per year are required to provide universal access to clean drinking water and sanitation. Currently 1/5 is spent each year on water systems which is, at least in quantity terms, human’s biggest problem.
In Europe $11 billion is spent each year on ice cream. $105 billion is spent annually on alcoholic drinks, twice the amount required to ensure water, sanitation and hygiene for all.
It would cost each citizen of the richest countries $10 per year to fully finance the struggle against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and Malaria in developing countries.
Another $10 from each citizen of the richest countries per year would provide basic education and primary health care to twenty of the poorest countries in Africa.
Meanwhile world military spendings are more than a trillion dollars per year.

Comparing African slaves, women and children to the state of nonhuman animals is false.
It is an illusion.
It’s an illusion just like the slaves’ liberation is an illusion of an example of a struggle that had succeeded, and just like the feminist struggle is an illusion of an example of a struggle that had succeeded or like the illusion that there is a nonviolent philosophy in this world (please read: I am sorry, I draw the line where there is violence in this FAQ).
They are all illusions and they are all very dangerous. Activists from all kinds of social change struggles, cling on to these examples which are false and build their philosophy, moral standards, tactics, hopes and motivations based on these illusions.
They prevent ideas that could come from a true examination of the state of affairs, to be implemented. The illusion causes activists to believe that a revolution is possible. The effect of that false belief is devastating. More animals, humans and nonhumans, suffer today than ever before in history.

The fact that there are more slaves today than ever before in history, but still people think that slavery is a long gone phenomenon, proves our point in the clearest and also the cruelest way.

The fact that activists cling on to "so called" successful struggles, stands for itself. Come on wake up! Half of the world’s human population is still automatically and systematically being discriminated against for gender reasons, so don’t give us, and more important don’t give yourselves "the world is changing" argument and "it takes small victories to win a war". You call twice more slaves, 200 years after the slaves have been "liberated", a victory?!

In anyway we observe it, it turns out really bad, whether the activists are not aware of what is going on in the world, whether they are aware but yet satisfied with their activity, whether they convince themselves that a real change is possible in the current world order or whether they cling on to these false examples of success of other struggles as an argument that they sell, mostly to themselves, in order to keep on doing what they do, and not to feel useless, meaningless and obligated to always look for ways to be more useful and better.

Anyone who will approach the idea without biases and preconceived notions would necessarily get to the simple and obvious conclusion that there is only one solution. Everything else is just playing revolution. You are not doing it for them. If it was up to the animals you can be sure they wouldn’t have wasted time trying to convince humans not to torture them. Not even one of you, we are sure, seriously thinks that is what the animals would ask you to do if they could.
They would expect a little more than demonstrations and leafleting don’t you think? We think you know that.

If animals could talk do you think they would explain to people what they can eat instead of their bodies or would they fight back?
They would escape from their captors.
They would shoot back when being shot at.
They would destroy the cages that confine them, so they could not be used again.
They would damage roads that make way for the destructive force of automobiles. They would burn down research facilities, and kill animal researchers, who daily destroy their kin for profit and amusement. They would form an underground of saboteurs to disrupt the machinery of the vast human killing machine called society.

We believe that those with a wider spectrum would start a research which will seek to stop the suffering for good. It might be very long and very frustrating but if they wish for a root and fundamental solution, that is the one. Annihilation of the abusive race.
Unfortunately the nonhuman animals can’t do it.
You can. Don’t let them down.

The last thing we want to do is to despair you. On the other hand, we certainly don’t want you to keep wasting your time - counting on human’s willingness to be thoughtful and caring towards other than themselves, while all the suffering continues.

Things are not changing in the world because of moral positions. As soon as activists from the animal rights movement and other revolutionary movements, understand that, the faster the suffering will end.

Why nonhuman animals too?

First of all we recommend that if you haven’t read the article non-speciesist suffering yet, please do and only then read the following answer.

What kind of a world would exist without humans? A much better one, no doubt.
Much much better.
But would it be a world without exploitation? Would it be a sufferingless world?

For many animal rights activists nature represents perfection, an ideal we should aspire to, or something spiritual that we should worship, something that ought to be preserved and never criticized. But the truth is that every other form of life is just as selfish, self-centered and gratuitously self-pleasing as ourselves.

A world without humans, as dreamy as it would be, won't be a sufferingless world and therefore it would be a partial solution.
Trillions of creatures would still suffer from rape, hunger, thirst, dehydration, infanticide, violent dominancy fights, constant fear of being hunted, diseases, torture, slavery and caducity.
In a humanless world, hyena cubs would still viscously fight each other, tearing slices of other cubs’ faces including ears and lips, to get more food.
In a humanless world wasps would still inject their eggs into a live caterpillar’s body to ensure that when their descendants hatch they will have breakfast (the wasp larva will eat the caterpillar from the inside out).
A humanless world is definitely not a masculinityless world. Brutal fights for territory and for the "right" to mate would still occur in immense numbers. Walrus would still fight each other over territory like sumo fighters with giant teeth that can reach up to one meter long and more than 5kg weight. And the biggest males with the biggest tusks would still push their way to the center of the iceberg pushing the females and pups to the edges where it is most dangerous.
In a humanless world billions of insects would still get chemically liquefied before they are eaten by spiders. And snakes would still swallow whole animals and slowly digest them until red tailed hawk would hunt them, digging in with their talons into the snakes’ body until they give up fighting back and then start to cut pieces of their body and eat them.
Eels would still electrify other fish to hunt them using up to 600V in a single discharge - this is 5 times the shock one would get from sticking a finger into an electrical socket.
Young offspring would still get murdered by opportunist males who want their own genes to be spread.
And duck, dolphin, sea lion females would still be gang raped.
It is so common among the hawaiian monk seals that it’s got a name - "mobbing". The males are so aggressive that they often kill the females and very often injure and hurt them. Immature seals of both sexes get hurt as well, accidentally standing in the way of the "mob".

Every single second somewhere in the world, a giant hornet fights a mantis, a shark fights an octopus, a white belly sea eagle fights a banded sea snake, a ginat weta fights a bat and if the bat prevail the other bats will fight him over the weta, thunder lizards fight each other, a crown eagle fights a chevrotain, a blue crab fights ameloctopus, a giant centipedes fights an iguana, a galapagos snake fights a marine iguana, a polar bear fights a ringed seal, an arctic tern fights a polar bear (beating their noses when they come for their eggs), bat falcon fights other bats, a hawk fights a viper, a numbat devour termites, a crocodile an egret, a shoebill a lungfish, the mexican long tailed bat an insect, a coyote hunts a rabbit and an anaconda crushes a capybara to death or griping so tight that the blood can't even circulate and so the poor capybara slowly suffocate to death.

And the tiny fraction of animals that will escape their enemies will suffer from droughts, floods, diseases, hunger, thirst and the pain and misery of growing old.

We mustn’t accept suffering just because it happens in what we call nature, and to nonhuman animals by other nonhuman animals. Suffering is bad when it is considered natural just as much as when it is considered artificial.
A gazelle being killed by a cheetah is not painless because it is considered natural.
Natural doesn’t equal good. The gazelle suffers. He is not familiar with humans’ notions like natural.
All suffering should be stopped and it doesn’t matter how we define it, where it happens and by whom.

Even when it happens inside the family...
While mother egret is looking for food for her chicks, the stronger ones viciously peck their weakest brother or sister to gain more food for themselves. It gets worse when a crocodile is trying to reach their nest. The stronger chicks beat the weakest until he falls to the water so the crocodile will eat him and leave the rest alone.

It is very cruel and cynical to think that it’s part of life and that there is nothing we can do about it. The easiest way is to convince yourselves that it is natural and what is natural is o.k. But is rape o.k because it is done to nonhuman animals by other nonhuman animals? Does the raped animal care who rapes her? Does she care why she is being raped? Does she care that humans call it natural? She doesn’t. And if she doesn’t you shouldn’t either.

The fixation that what is natural must be good, prevents any criticism. If not towards the creatures since they don’t reason as many often claim, then at least towards the behavior itself. But activists avoid criticizing actions happening in what they call nature because they fear it might cast to the actors too. The lack of criticism reaches absurdity as nothing among the behavior of animals is ever bad, if the harm cannot be emotionally ignored it is justified as being natural.
Tamarins for example need to eat all the time since they are constantly in motion. Same goes for mothers who need to eat as well as bring food to their young which are being left alone many times each day. Some people are so sure that nature is perfect that it somehow doesn’t affect the young. The defenseless young are in many cases being hunted but we are not talking about the obvious but rather about the pain of being left alone again and again and again. Frightened, starving and generally confused and helpless, all are affected by this behavior and some might even develop separation anxiety. We know it happens with animals we are related to like monkeys, dogs and of course humans. The psychological damage shouldn’t be ridiculed especially not by animal rights activists. It just can’t be that they are not harmed by it, and this is just one species out of many with the same situation.

Another example that would probably be ignored or indifferently disavow regards the Right Whale mating syndrome which includes jumping to impress the females. The flaps of 100 tons in the water are horrible to the seabed creatures. Think of the vibrations in the water, how it affects the whole surrounding. We doubt that the other inhabitants feel it is o.k because the most alienated from nature creature that ever lived calls it a natural phenomenon.
If the female whale is not interested another natural phenomenon in the miracle of life happens, she is being raped!
The whale female doesn’t have a choice but to surrender to the males’ courtships because several of them surround her and attacking her until she gives up and dive with one of them. Sometimes one of them feels he is close enough and pulls his 3.5 meters pence and attempts to rape her. Since whales have a tone weighting testicle with gallons of urethra, they can wash each others sperm out and so the female is ought to mate with many and only the last one will impregnate her.

And from violent mating to violent pregnancy. The cichlid fish mothers collect their young inside their mouth when they spot a sign of danger. The catfish are parasitic creatures who ruthlessly exploit this phenomenon. The mother catfish mix her eggs with the cichlid's eggs forcing the mother to collect them into her mouth as well as her own, manipulating her to become their surrogate mother. The catfish eggs hatch first and eat all the cichlid eggs inside their mother's body and get out to the sea when ready.

Nature, it is amazing how one magical word can purify any behavior.

It is an illusion to think that you don’t decide for the animals. Of course you do!
You decide for them to suffer from hunger, thirst and diseases. You decide for them to constantly fear predators. You decide they will be murdered by predators. You condemn billions to brutally fight each other over group dominance. You decide they will suffer from the torments of infirmity.
You decide that they will continue to suffer instead of not feeling any pain ever again.

You choose for the animals and for everybody in this world just from being alive and aware of what is going on. You can't choose not to choose because you know. You know that whales play volleyball with seals and you can't decide not to choose for them. When you are choosing not to activate the only one solution idea, you are choosing for the seals to keep suffering from internal organ damage and broken bones as they are beaten to the air by orcas 20 times their size.
You don’t have a choice but to choose for them. Not choosing is an illusion and the reality is that you choose the current state of affairs.
We know it is there, so we can't ignore it. We can’t be passive because it is another species involved.

It is not that we are active in choosing for them and you are passive. There is no passiveness. Knowing is choosing. You can either be ignorant or you can be active but you can’t be passive. If you know you choose. If you choose not to stop you choose to approve.

You choose to leave chimpanzees’ organized hunting trips (they don’t hunt only when there is an opportunity or only when the females are in heat) where each has a specific role, someone taps on a tree marking the others that the hunting trip had begun, some attack on the trees and some wait on the ground for the fallers. They are usually after red colobus monkeys, specifically looking for mothers and their young as they are most vulnerable. They separate between them, kill them and eat them back in the colony splitting the meat among the entire group.
These horrifying episodes are conventional and always joined with a lot of yelling and trees pounding and branches flapping on the ground. How can a compassionate person watch it and hear it and say that it's o.k because the red colobus monkeys are in natural panic.

You choose that plovers will keep anxiously worry that their eggs will be damaged, from a stray hippo, inquisitive baboon or an hungry lizard and even from the sun that might boil their egg so the mother and father are forced to take turns in flying into the water, over and over and over and hatch their egg while their wings are wet during the whole hot summer days.

The heat can turn the worst places in the world, even worse.
The plains of Africa are living hell all year long. The climate is rough all the time and the notorious battles between hyenas, lioness and vultures, jackals and cheetahs happen all the year round, but everything intensifies in the hot summer. The rivers become small pools and the savannah becomes dry land so everybody comes to drink in the same dried up rivers that have become measly pools. They all fight over the poor Impalas, buffalo, darters, wildebeest and etc. that fear every time they come to drink.
Some inhabitants are extremely territorial especially the lions, the hippos and the crocodiles, so when the water levels drop and temperatures increase they are all forced together in such a small space and with so little water to drink and to cool in, that the violence is constant. The summer’s extreme conditions push them to their limits so except fighting over the same animals, lioness and crocodiles even hunt each other and both try to hunt hippos as well but usually without much of a success. They can only hunt unsupervised baby hippos and since they are herd animals it doesn’t happen very often. In fact the baby hippos’ greatest fear is other hippos.
The adults often kill each other during their fights over territories and mating rights all year long. In the summer the extreme density forces them to invade each other’s territory all the time and so constant violence takes place in the herd. The baby hippos are victims of this behavior. And if it is not direct violence, since the hippos are practically tied to each other, when a crocodile tries to hunt one of them the whole herd tries to escape in panic lashing each other over. That’s when the shrinking pools become a death trap. Small and weak hippos are crushed to death by the crowded herd. Many injured and slowly die from their wounds.

As opposed to the Darwin chaffinch which is well known as a blood thirsty bird who deliberately wound seabirds' back and drink their dripping blood, the oxpecker birds of Africa were considered to maintain mutualistic lives by picking parasites off large mammals like hippopotamus, rhinoceros and buffalos. However, it was recently realized that they also keep wounds on the animals' skin open to feed on the exuding blood. So you can choose to call it a symbiosis but in fact it’s tormenting opportunism.

Another kind of opportunism commonly takes place among the beloved Emperor penguins in the Antarctic who stand on the brink of the water, hesitating before diving in, fearing that a sea leopard might ambush them, naturally nobody wants to be the first, so they wait until one of them pushes someone else in so they’ll know if it safe or not.

And opportunism’s devil cousin is parasitism.
Perhaps the most horrific example of a parasite creature is the lamprey eel, a jawless parasitic marine animal with a toothed, funnel-like sucking mouth which they use to bore into the flesh of other fish and suck their blood. The oral apparatus of the adult lamprey is a sucking disk lined with whorls of over 100 of these teeth. They swim with the fish and literally feed on him until he dies, but are sometimes shaken off leaving the fish who usually dies from the wound or a later infection. And as if not cruel enough they also secrete two substances, one to prevent coagulation and the other to breakdown muscle tissues that are then sucked in as fluids.

After humans are gone, nonhuman animals would still murder, rape, and exploit each other for their own profit, just as they do now. Suffering is an inherent part of life. Someone will always suffer for someone else. As long as life exists, pain will too. As you know, the reason pain exists is that it is beneficial from an evolutionary point of view. Every single nerve signal communicating an animals' agony to their brain is beneficial to the being from an evolutionary standpoint, as it increases the chances that the animal will live long enough to produce offspring.
The history of the evolution of life on this planet has been written with pain and suffering. Survival and reproduction have been the only imperatives guiding the gradual changes in morphology which have given the various species their present forms and behavior. All the organisms are selfish. They all have been, they all are and they all will act in order to promote their own genes. That is what life is all about and consequently that is what all the living creatures are about.

The first natural cause of suffering that comes to mind is probably predation.
Predation is literally as old as life itself. It goes back to the most ancient life forms - single cell organisms.
As soon as there were living single cell organisms, one of their major functions was to acquire chemicals from their surroundings. Therefore those living mechanisms themselves were packed full of concentrated chemicals (the ones they have gathered and were made of). As time went by, some organisms by chance (mutation) instead of gathering scattered minerals, obtained them in a compact form by devouring the cells around them. This turned out to be an "efficient" "strategy".
About 3.5 billion years later there are fangs, claws, talons, venoms, webs, beaks, sonars, infra red vision, tentacles and slaughterhouses. This is life. As simple and technical as that.

Like in any other situation, only when we acknowledge the roots of the problem, will we be able to solve it, and the roots of the problem, the origin of the suffering, is in the mechanism of life itself.

Moral people do not stand idly while helpless creatures suffer. We can change it.

We don’t want to annihilate nonhuman animals or human animals.
Annihilation is the mean not the goal. We want a sufferingless world.
We don’t want battery cages, vivisection and slaughterhouses. And we don’t want caterpillars being eaten from the inside out by dozens of wasps' larva either.

The human race perspective on itself and on the world has changed through time and will keep on changing, all we need is to be patient

Humans' perspective was, still is and will always be extremely anthropocentric.
They see themselves as the center of the universe. Even after the three big revolutions of Copernicus, Darwin and Freud.

Copernicus discovered that our planet is not the center of the universe.
The sun and all the other stars are not circling the earth.
Humans know today that earth is just another planet, not particularly big or special in a not particularly big or special solar system.

Darwin taught us that not only are we not the center of the universe, we are not even the center of Earth. All the species have the same origin. We are just another animal as all the other species - nothing special about us on earth too.
Even the major discoveries in the genes field, that show the amazing similarities between humans and nonhuman animals, are not enough for humans to understand. Anthropocentric attitudes still haven’t vanished.

One of the most important beliefs, which makes animal abuse possible, is the idea that humans and other animals are in some way separated by an unbridgeable gap.
But humans, as you know, are great apes, not gods. Both genetically, and in terms of their behavior, humans are much more closely related to other great apes than these apes are to monkeys. Humans and chimpanzees have about 98.4% of their genes in common, whereas monkeys have only about 93% of the same genes as the apes. Gorillas are about twice as close to humans genetically as they are to chimpanzees.
Compare this with the genetic difference between two similar birds such as the red-eyed vireo and the white-eyed vireo, which are 2.9% different genetically. In other words, these two very similar birds are twice as different genetically from each other as humans are from chimpanzees.
The amazing similarity is supposed to fundamentally weaken anthropocentric concepts that unfortunately most humans hold.
But when half of the Americans still reject the theory of evolution, superannuating anthropocentrism is far from reality.
Nothing fundamental has changed. Even those unequivocal facts are not convincing humans. They want to believe in their superiority because, among other excuses, it "justifies" their exploitation.

Freud generated the third revolution that was supposed to create another hole in the anthropocentric view. He said that not only are humans not the center of the universe, and the animal kingdom… they are not even the center of themselves.
Humans are not really in control of what they are.
They are motivated by unaware impulses and by systems and mechanisms in the sub consciousness that they don’t have control over and can’t change.
Freud taught us how important and critical are experiences in the first stages of life.
We can’t reach back to these points in life that designed us and change them.
We are not even really the masters of our own domain.

These theories are almost meaningless in the everyday life of most humans as a concept.
All these ideas are pretty simple, however most humans don’t grasp them.
The reasons for the gap between the revolution that these ideas were supposed to create, and the everyday reality, in which humans are still convinced and act as if they are the center of the universe, are coming from a motivation to keep humans’ superior status in the world. A status that was supposed to die out a long time ago.
The fact that most humans still believe in the existence of a god in the year 2008, after so many discoveries that refute its existence, is not an indication of ignorance (in many parts of the world it is, but that is not the case we are talking about now), or that the alternative theories are not of satisfactory. It is an indication of the motivation humans have to believe in a god, and that they are the center of his creation. There is nothing rational in that belief or in the belief that the human race is superior and the center of the universe.
There is nothing rational in discriminating somebody for his/her skin color, gender, ethnic origin or species. There are motivations to hold these perceptions and they are much stronger than the little rational thinking humans are capable of.
The fact is that most humans believe in a god, most humans believe that they are the masters of the universe and most humans are racists, chauvinists and of course speciesists.

The change should be internal and there is no chance for that to happen. The ones in power won’t voluntarily waive it. Learn from history, it always repeats itself. Only the setting and the performers change.
Apparently the three main revolutions are not really revolutions. It is not a matter of time. It is a matter of motivation, and rational arguments cannot beat motivation.

And on whose expense the request for patience is being asked anyway?
It is pure speciesism to prefer the interests of members of one species over others.
For some reason animal rights organizations "decided" that no matter what humans do, they must stay. The automatic chance humans get and the speciesist request to be patient won't be given in case of human victims.

A non-speciesist perspective, a point of view that doesn’t count the interests of one species over another, necessarily leads to the conclusion that this world has to be stopped.

The problem is that people don't know what is going on

It’s true that most people don’t know exactly what the animals go through in factory farms, but they do know the basic facts.
They know that meat is animals' flesh. They know that animals are born to die. They know meat is murder. The problem is that they don’t care.

"Animal liberation" by peter singer was written 34 years ago, "Animals machines" by Ruth Harrison was written 43 years ago, and since these two, hundreds more were published and there are hundreds of websites with thousands of articles and thousands of videos and tens of thousands of photos documenting animals' systematic exploitation by humans. People have many ways to get the information if they want to, they just don’t.

Some, like farmers, vivisectors and slaughterhouse workers definitely know what is going on, they live it each day. They have much more than information. They see, hear, smell and touch animal suffering every day. How come so little of them change conceptions?

Obviously, people are trying to avoid the acknowledgment that it is not moral to exploit animals, setting their limit randomly at any place that fits their day-to-day routine. From minding themselves only, to family and friends, same country, same religion, same species, "free" range eggs only, no veal only, no tested cosmetic products only and etc.
Unfortunately, you are avoiding the acknowledgment of their avoidment of the acknowledgment.

The animal rights arguments are so simple and right. They are based on solid facts and evidences. Nobody can confront them rationally. Why then is it so hard to convince someone to go vegan?
The reason is that rationality is not enough in this world. It has proved itself as an insufficient element in order to change people’s habits. Rationality can’t beat motivation. For a more extensive view on that matter please read Even the most selfish argument is not working in our article section.

If you examine the arguments that are raised in conversations about animal rights and about veganism (and obviously you do it all the time, and being sarcastic about it too), you won’t find even one rational argument against animal rights or veganism.
You’ll never stop hearing the same stupid old responses:
"What about how other animals kill and eat each other?"
"Human beings are a part of the food chain, and eating meat is natural. So then, how can it be wrong?"
"Doesn't the Bible say that humans have dominion over the animals?"
"If God did not want us to eat meat, then why did he place animals on the Earth?"
"How do you know that plants can not feel pain too?"
"What about insects?"
"Would you rather save your child or your dog?"
"Shouldn't we focus on solving human problems before worrying about animals?"
"If everyone become vegetarian, then what will we do with all the farm animals?"
"Meat tastes too good to become a vegetarian."
"If we didn't raise animals for food, then they would never have had the chance to be born and experience life at all."
"Don’t you have something better to do?"

…and you will give the same answers.
For how long will you play this game? It is a waste of energy and time.
The animals don’t have either of them.

Lack of information is not the problem. The problem is that people that do know what is going on are not doing anything about it, and the few that do something, are aiming at the wrong direction.

Do you hate humans?

It might sound and look like a human hate parade, but it is not. We don’t hate humans, we hate suffering. Humans are the ones who are responsible for most of the suffering in the world so they have a significant representation in this website. And humans' suffering is not absent at all, being represented in 8 articles now and 3 more soon to be published, not to mention several slideshows that regard humans’ suffering, so human hate is definitely not our motivation. We are not promoting the annihilation idea out of hate.
We don’t want anything bad to happen to anyone. On the contrary, we want that all the bad things won’t ever happen again to anybody.

We also don’t promote the annihilation out of rage or despair. We are only interested in stopping the suffering, not in revenge. The only thing we will get is more suffering if we seek revenge.
It is not an impulsive reaction. It is a rational idea. The only rational idea, under the circumstances. It is not hate, it's the only moral thing to do.

Humans have a tremendous capability to close their minds to all reasoning and insulate themselves from moral arguments.
We understand it, but morally we mustn’t accept it. We are not directly accusing humans for what they are.
We are not into accusations. We are into solutions.

We want all that to stop - for good. For humans’ sake too.
People who are against the idea accept the current state of affairs.
They accept that one billion humans suffer from hunger, that 300 million suffer from malaria, that about 400 million suffer from diseases related to water shortage.
They accept that 1 in 6 humans have no access to safe drinking water, that over 2.5 billion people lack access to water for sanitation.
They accept that 1 in 4 women is raped.
1 in 4 children lives in dangerous, unstable areas.
1 in 4 children suffers from malnourishment.

The opposers of the annihilation idea hate humans. They are the ones who are in favor of the current situation.
History repeats itself all the time. Nothing is changing. The strong are constantly exploiting the weak. Always have, always will.

Who are you?

Well, we wish it wouldn’t matter to you who we are and that you would deal with the message and not with the messengers, anyway we are former animal rights activists who dedicated every minute of our lives to the animal rights movement until we realized that we were giving all we’ve got in the wrong place.

Like you, we guess, we also blamed ourselves for the failure of the struggle for animal liberation. And it was our fault, but not because we haven’t tried hard enough, but because we were aiming at the wrong direction.
We had focused our efforts on the ridiculos attempt to change all the humans in the world as if it is possible and as if it can achieve our sufferingless world desire.

We understand that it may sound like we are just tired and frustrated from the struggle but… no way! We have been working harder for the last few years than in any other year in the struggle for animal liberation. Now we have even more energy and motivation because now we are working on a way to stop all the suffering in the world.

You are all devoting your lives to the animal liberation struggle. We tried it for a few years too, but the thought that it is not the solution, that it is not enough, was always there.
We did demonstrations, rallies, parades, vegan food stands, information stands, lectures, seminars, direct actions, graffiti, posters, flyers, liberations from factory farms and from laboratories, lobbyism and laws promotion, articles, investigations, movies, blockings, street theatres and every other way we thought could help convince humans to stop taking part and finance animal exploitation.
Of course we didn’t invent anything. Activists have been using all these methods and a lot more, for decades.
However we understood that the question should not be what is the best way to convince humans but why is it so that our first inclination is to convince humans not to exploit, why are we asking the tortures to stop torturing, when we know it is not supposed to be the tortures’ choice whether to torture or not?
The arguments between the welfare advocates, the rights advocates and the abolitionists are not relevant. All of them are not efficient and not moral, because they rely on human compassion and morality. Asking them to stop abusing is actually accepting their superiority and expecting them to voluntarily give up on their control over the non-human animals. History and every day reality prove it to be completely irrelevant. Humans will never voluntarily give up their predominance.
Power is too addictive. The domination is too comfortable.

We understood that if you act in conventional ways, you are actually saying to the dairy cows and the laying hens to wait for the revolution that will never come.
Tell the 50 billion crippled broiler chickens "there is nothing to do… it is a process you see…"
How convenient when you don’t have to face them.

So it doesn’t matter who we are, it is not about us, it is about you. And the time has come for you to face them too.

In your website you write about human suffering, how can you compare human suffering to animals' suffering?

We don’t. We are trying to include every suffering element in the world with no difference in shape, size, color, gender, race or species.
Suffering is suffering, and all the suffering should be eliminated.

We hope and expect you to go over all our material and then you will find that out of our 44 articles, 8 regard humans as victims and all the rest regard nonhuman animals as victims. Only 7 slideshows out of 72 slideshows overall regard humans as victims and all the rest regard nonhuman animals. We feel that the reference to the different topics is proportional to the scope of the problem. At least that’s what we were aiming for.
And that too is only if you insist on a simplistic differentiation, as if the world debt or the state of women and children don’t significantly affect nonhumans not to mention the food and the water crisis.

Some of the human victim industries are vaster than some of the nonhuman animal industries. For example there are more girls and women who are victims of rape as a military strategy each year, than there are donkeys in the donkey basketball villainousness. We don’t argue that the donkeys’ lives are much worse and we don’t say otherwise, it just doesn’t matter. The same as it doesn’t matter whether chickens in battery cages suffer more than a sheep in the wool industry or vice versa.

When we were activists in the conventional movement it mattered because we wanted to help those who needed us the most, so we had to compare and decide somehow.
Now as we are aiming at stopping it all, it doesn’t matter.

I agree that the human race is the world’s biggest problem and the cause of most of the suffering but I am against extinction

This argument is not consistent and it is speciesist.
If you have a problem with animal extinction then it is actually supposed to be another reason to annihilate the human race, because it is the human race who is responsible for between 50 to 150 extinctions per day.
If you are against the extinction of the human race, you are in favor of the extinction of about 100 species per day which is more than 35,000 species per year.

This rate is at least 10,000 times greater than the 'background' or natural rate of species extinction, estimated (using the fossil record) at only 2.5 species per year. Mankind is responsible for all this.
The annual extinction rate is increasing still further. Over the next few decades, earth is on course to an extinction of 50,000 species per year. By 2100, according to current trends, fully two-thirds of all species will go extinct.

One in 4 amphibians is an endangered species, so is one in 4 mammals, one in 8 birds, one in two crustaceans, one of every 5 fish species and one of every 5 reptiles - all are endangered species.

And that is not all:
More than 50% of the world's wetlands have been drained.

Since 1950, some 7.5 billion acres of forest - nearly half - have been lost.
Each year, a further 40 million acres of forest are destroyed.

50% - 80% of mangrove ecosystems have been destroyed.

Roughly one-third of the world's coral reef systems have been destroyed or highly degraded.

One-fourth of the planet's topsoil has been lost.

Nearly 2 billion hectares of crop and grazing land are suffering from moderate to severe soil degradation.

Animal extinction is not one of our reasons to raise the O.O.S movement, but if you are against extinction, the best thing you can do about it is extinct the human race.
Annihilation of the human race is the only solution from that point of view too.

It is the same with eating meat. An American meat eater is responsible for the abuse and killing of nearly 3,400 animals within his/her lifetime, including 2,460 chickens, 800 fish, 96 turkeys, 32 pigs and sheep, and 12 calves. Refusing to kill him means he is worth the pain and the suffering of all of them. Simple math, if he stays alive – all these animals won’t.

Most humans have a problem with extiniction for selfish reasons. They are sad because they cannot watch a certain species anymore.
The problem with extinction is that individuals suffer before they die and that extinction of one species affects individuals from other species. For most humans biodiversity's role is to entertain and interest them.
Most humans are not aware of the single significance of extinction which is, as said before, the effect over individuals from another species. Besides that, there is no rational reason to mourn the death of the last individual from an endangered species more than the death of any chicken in the meat industry. And we shouldn’t be mourning when a chicken dies because every single moment in the life of a chicken in the meat industry is a nightmare. We should be glad for their death, not sad. It ends their misery.
Yes this is the world we live in. Death is the salvation for most of the living creatures.

But the human race is the most important species on earth. If it will go extinct, it will significantly affect all the other species

The human race has an enormous impact over other creatures on earth. The biggest effect by no doubt and with no proportions to its numbers. Most probably bigger than the effect of all the other animals together.

As opposed to the enormous influence that is derived from humans' behavior, the human race biological "role" is supposed to be very minor. Considering its original place in the food chain and what was supposed to be its impact on the environment, the human race should have been a marginal species in biosphere terms.
Humans’ nutrition is not based on a specific species (they reproduce the animals and plants they eat by themselves) and vice versa, there is no other species that its nutrition is based on humans. Ecologically speaking, the human race is not supposed to be important. If humans lived in a sustainable way they were almost meaningless.

Without the human race infinite destruction ability, without the human race quick and aggressive conquest of the world while destroying most of the habitats of most of the species, without the destructive effect of humans’ waste, which is the result of their egoistic and immoderate lifestyle, without these factors, without these actualized potential to severely harm the other inhabitants on the planet, it would be hard to point out the changes if the human race ceased to exist.

Obviously, in the current state of affairs, the impact would be tremendous. A dream come true.
No more land robbing, no water and land pollution, no more oil drillings, ozone holing, garbage mountains. No more concrete.
And of course besides the ecological aspect, no more of the hugest and most violent exploitation systems ever in the history of this planet.
No more battery cages, no more raped cows, no more screwed brains, no slaughterhouses, no isolation devices, no bears on bicycles, no chronic hunger, no more babies who were born to a life of suffering from birth to death.

Therefore, the argument is absurd. What makes humans the most significant creatures on earth is their brutal and violent control over the planet, their destructive abilities.
These facts are arguments to annihilate the human race not to stabilize its position.

The "holiness" of human's life, as the modern society seizes it, is absurd. While humans argue whether birth limitation is moral or not, they justify cold-blood murder of non-human animals by claiming that they are destroying the balance of the environment. Humans are unproportionately more destructive to the environment than all the non- human animals combined. Nothing is even close to the destructive ability of the human race. There are no justifications.
The human race is the world's biggest "pest".

How come you use death numbers as a bad thing?

The death figures are used as a bad thing because they emphasis exploitation industries measures, and because they demonstrate humans’ true perception of life and death, referring towards death as a bad thing but bring it about systematically and constantly. Another reason is that when we are trying to cover the world suffering elements we can’t ignore death which usually represents the end of lives full of suffering. The use of "death figures" fits our main idea, because the mentioned dead, died because their lives were so bad and because the suffering was so great, and suffering as you already understood is what we are all about.

As for humans' perception of life and death, most humans don't agree with us that death is not necessarily a bad thing.
They don’t agree that it depends on the suffering that has been increased or decreased following that death. Death itself is meaningless, it becomes meaningful only because it affects the surrounding creatures. Like any other action, death is a bad thing when it causes an increase of suffering and a good thing when it reduces suffering.
When a meat eater vivisectionist dies it will probably reduce suffering, so it is a good thing. When a vegan animal rights activist dies it will probably increase suffering - therefore a bad thing. In spite of this, humans still seize death as an absolute bad thing and therefore object the only one solution idea.

We assume that most humans (almost all of them) will vigorously oppose the idea, even though they are directly responsible for the murders of billions every year, for completely different reasons - not out of compassion, rational and moral concepts, not because it's the only way to stop the world suffering, but out of cupidity, ostentation, gluttony, dandyism, ignorance, cheap entertainment and fun.

Don’t you think it's ironic that humans who are responsible for the death of 950 animals during their lifetime proclaim to be pro life?! (950 animals is the world average of meat consumption per human, if you calculate eggs, milk, honey, clothes, electricity, your house which used to be animals’ inhabitant, oil, water, experiments which we all fund with our taxes, highways, plastic, logging, waste thrown into the oceans, nylon, diapers, candles, sugar, tobacco and of course pesticides which are in vegetarian food also and this is still a very partial list, then it would probably be a world average of 950 animals per day!).
Nothing is consistent, nothing is rational. Every human is a mass murder but when we suggest human extinction as a solution to most of the suffering in the world, every human is Hippocrates. Hypocrites actually.

Let’s take for example humans relation towards their own species. Half of the world's people are poor who drink dirty water, never wash their hands and have nothing to eat. And this is all human made. The fact that the three biggest problems humans face today are armed conflicts, water shortage and hunger is the severest testimonium paupertatis and the human race biggest failure. Humans kill each other on a daily basis for profit, parking space, because some humans pray 3 times a day and others 5 times a day.
They have robbed the entire world from other animals killing and hurting them, and now they constantly fight over land with each other. As a consequence of their occupation of the world they are able to produce much more food than the whole race needs. But yet one person out of 5 in developing countries is undernourished. This is the human race… don’t do anything right.
Our use of death figures in our website, demonstrates the irony in humans' objection to the only one solution.

What if there is suffering in other planets too? If we will annihilate ourselves we won’t be able to help the other planets?

For some of you it might sound like a strange question, however we feel obligated to address every question we have been asked.

It is possible that there are more sentient beings suffering somewhere in the universe on other planets. But we don’t think that this possibility, that we are not sure how likely it is anyway, could be a serious argument for the exploitation on this planet to go on.

We can’t really balance all the suffering on planet earth with a chance that there are other life forms, and that these other life forms are sentient and that they live on reachable planets and that we could somehow help them. It is statistically so unlikely that unfortunately it seems more like an excuse. A way to feel morally o.k. with a very cruel decision - to leave this world as it is.

Don’t you think it is ironic that someone, who up until now dealt with campaigns of small scale industries in his country alone, is raising the entire universe as a counter argument for putting an end to all the suffering in the world?

Even if we’ll go with this hypothetical situation, it is very unlikely that activists would be the first to be able to reach other planets and more likely it will happen only after humans will settle down there. In that case it is pretty obvious that humans would suck and squeeze everything they can out of those planets just as they do on this one, which is their home and their children’s home. What makes you think they won’t do the same on other planets if they got the chance?

They will do the same as they always did, still do and will never stop doing as long as we don’t stop them, they will destroy everything on their way to another pleasure.
Throughout history humans have literally, exploited everything. Blacks, whites, women, children, horses, elephants, bears, cows, fish, chickens, everything on this planet!
All of the above share the same genes with humans. Do you really think that a species that tortures and murders its own kind, will save and won’t exploit creatures from another planet?
Don’t you think humans will experiment the new creatures or lock the "exotic creatures" in a zoo?

If there are sentient creatures on other planets that humans could reach in the future, then humans will be their nightmare not their saviors.
So those of you who feel it’s a realistic option that humans would reach other stars which are inhabited with sentient creatures, should be more motivated by it to end this world before humans could reach them too...

What about the animals who are in captivity now?

The only one solution includes all the animals not just humans (see why nonhumans too in the FAQ and non-speciesist suffering in the article section). Therefore the animals in captivity will be included in the solution as well. But even if they will not be a part of the solution and only the human race will be annihilated, there isn’t much doubt that the fate of the captivated animals will be much better anyway. In that scenario unfortunately they might die from dehydration or hunger but as horrible as it is, it is still better than life in a factory farm. The aggressive and traumatic snatching from shed, loading into truck, transportation, violently forced into the slaughterhouse and the slaughter itself, probably cause more suffering than the suffering caused by dehydration.

If the only one solution idea won’t be carried out, the caged animals would stay in the cages anyway and continue to suffer from beating, humiliation, dehorning, number burning, starvation, rape, density, ear clipping, force feeding, castration, diseases, confinement, transport and slaughter. Everything is better than factory farming.

Do you really doubt that a death from hunger is better than a year in a battery cage? Than six years in a cow shed? Than ten years in a circus? Than 25 years in the premarin industry?

Even if you insist that many animals will endure more suffering in the cages after the human race will be gone than while they were here, we are talking about the present animals only. Every year the animal exploitation system creates 100 billion more animals to suffer from birth to death. The suffering that will be prevented after a few months only, will be much greater than the suffering of the present captivated animals.
In one year alone there are much more caged animals than there are in a certain moment. And all of them will never suffer. You will be saving the future sufferers.

The annihilation idea is for good. The above argument is relevant to one generation only and as we explained, even for that one generation it is better. What about the future generations?

Things are only getting worse. Animal consumption is growing rapidly and persistently. Every year more animals are being exploited. And it is not only a quantitative matter, every year the industry manages to make the exploitation more efficient on the expense of the animals’ broken bodies. The genetic invasion is getting more harmful and violent every year. Farm animals are already twisted freaks - born to be cripples.
The next generation will suffer more than the present and less than the one after it.
In the future, many more animals will suffer much more.

We hope that the process will cause as little suffering as possible.
But remember that no matter what the method is, if it causes suffering it will be for one generation only and then the suffering will be stopped forever. So even if your annihilation idea has a potential of causing a lot of suffering, there is no doubt that it is still worth it because nothing can be compared to the suffering amounts that a decision not to do it will cause.
Otherwise the suffering will never end. Generation after generation will be born to this decayed world as the new sufferers, only to become a steak, omelet, shoes, coat, hat, shampoo, pizza or entertainment.

If you are thinking that it is wrong to "sacrifice" (the captivated animals won’t be sacrificed because the annihilation idea is better for them, even if they stay in their cages as we explained earlier) a generation for the sake of all the creatures that will ever suffer on this planet, we ask you, don’t you think it is wrong to "sacrifice" all the creatures that will ever live for the sake of the perfection of your world view?
When you decide not to "sacrifice" the ones that will stay in the cages, you condemn trillions of sentient creatures to a life of suffering from birth to death.

O.k. I agree, but don’t you think it will take a lot of time and the chances are very small to succeed, so I better act within the conventional movement?

We don’t think that the chances are small. We don’t know what the chances are and neither do you.
What we do know and demonstrated all over the website is that if you continue to work within the conventional movement the chances to liberate the animals won’t be little, they will be zero.

Peter Singer, one of the most significant philosophers and spokespersons of the movement, said the agreement by McDonald's to give battery hens a few more inches of cage space was the most significant development for farm animals since he wrote Animal Liberation.
More than thirty years of animal rights activism and the best we can show is a larger battery cage?!

It’s very difficult to make someone acknowledge that the movement he is part of, all the effort that was put in, the life work of so many, is failing.
It’s painful to admit that activists rely on small achievements missing the bigger picture and fail to recognize the mechanism. Many honestly believe the state of animals improved since the movement was formed.
It is frightening to think how much animal suffering increased since Animal Liberation was first published. The global pigs meat production increased almost 3 times, egg production 4 times and chickens meat production by more than 5 times.
Since 1975 new industries have been formed joining the ones that already exist and constantly expand. New species became subjected to commercial exploitation, that intensify further all the time. The prices got cheaper and cheaper and a greater verity of available products was introduced to the market consecutively in the 44 years of the "animal liberation age".

The movement has failed. It was long ago - the time to try different approaches.
So the answer is, no, you better not. You better hurry up, gather a few activists that are committed enough and focus on a way to stop all the suffering, because society is irrevocably speciesist and immoral. Gains made are easily reversed.
Animal abuse will go on until mankind becomes extinct or the planet is destroyed.
It’s time we open our eyes and admit that we shall never overcome.
History has shown that working within the cruel system and winning small battles for the animals, proved to be irrelevant. The carnage against animals continues.
The opposition is stronger, better financed, and more numerous than animal defenders.

The establishment is not going to allow any real change within it, unless the political structure, big businesses and finally the mainstream consumer society feels that a change is really necessary. Yet, it is the same political structure, big businesses and consumer society that are directly responsible for most of the suffering on the planet for the sake of profit. Since these entities have repeatedly demonstrated their prioritizing of monetary gain ahead of suffering, it is absolute foolishness to keep asking them nicely for reform or revolution. Humans will not wake up some day compassionate, caring, and moral and you shouldn’t expect or ask them to.

The conventional way is speciesist. It refers to humans’ power and control as obvious.
Activists in the conventional movement are not trying to "dethrone" humans, they are trying to convince "the masters" to change their treatment toward their slaves. That is unacceptable. Human superiority should not be considered inevitable. And unfortunately it is. The fact that the animal rights activists’ natural tendency and the first and last plan of action, is to explain to humans that their daily torturing of the weaker for their own minor benefits, habits and pleasures is wrong, is pure speciesism. Giving humans the right to decide is speciesism. The natural tendency should be to stop the suffering in the most deep rooted and fastest way.
And the most efficient way is definitely not by asking the oppressors to be more considerate.

As hard as it is for us to say and for you to accept, most of the activists are speciesists who devote their time to constituting the torture, and all of the activists practically accept humans’ dominance.
Animal rights organizations "decided" that no matter what humans do, they must stay. They are trying to educate them and change their violent habits, meaning automatically accepting the general existence of suffering and compromising on the efforts to reduce it.

Even the most radical activists compromise on what they think they can achieve for the animals and until now even this is not achievable. What are the chances of outlawing birth of more than one child for each couple when bullfights are still legal and are very popular? What are chances of outlawing private cars when it is legal to shove a pipe into bears gal bladder and extract their bile? Can we seriously discuss airplanes as birds’ rights violations, while it is totally legal to enter a forest shoot monkeys and kidnap their young, fly them thousands of miles in a tiny box to screw their skulls and run test for a few years on their brains all in the name of science?

Even when most of the public is against an exploitive industry, like in the case of rodeos, fur, ivory, female genital mutilation, child soldiers and etc, it doesn’t matter. It is not enough. The world is changing because of economic and political reasons. Not because of moral reasons. Cockfights, Bullfights and Dogfights still exist, in spite of the campaigns that the animal rights organizations run against them for decades, and in spite that most humans are against them. And if this is not enough for a little and publicly unaccepted industries such as cockfighting and dogfighting, when will the broiler industry, which is more than 50 billion suffering animals per year industry, ever stop? When?
If you keep fighting in conventional methods - Never!

It’s the market forces and technology that dictate the reality for each and every creature in this world and especially for the hundreds of billions of animals raised in intensive factory farms. Everything is economic. Things change when there is an interest, money and a market for the change. Three elements that the animal rights movement doesn’t hold. Humans don’t have an interest to go vegan, the animal rights movement doesn’t have money and the market wants steaks not tofu.
Every year tens of millions more are born into a life of suffering, and the numbers will keep rising until you realize that conventional activism can only gently nibble the edges of the mainstream but it can’t stop the main stream of suffering.

Activists and organizations are trying to change the world and are failing all the time. Everyday is worse than the day before. Our website is full of facts and figures about suffering in the world, but the worst one is that every second 5 more babies are born. The world is so horrible and the social change organizations are so noneffective that the most dominant suffering factor is by far the birth rate.

The more humans the more suffering.
For a wider spectrum about the world’s animal consumption course please read the answer to the question Why not work hard to make a vegan world?

But humans of course, are not the only suffering creators on this planet. All the animals have been, all are and all will act in order to promote their own genes. That is what life is all about and consequently that is what all the living creatures are designed for. All the organisms are selfish. Can your conventional way affect creatures’ genes? Can it change the basic elements of life? Will creatures stop fighting each other over territories, dominancy, mating "rights" and etc? Will all the world creatures stop hurting each other while they are converting each other to an energy source? Or is it o.k. because it is a "natural suffering"? Are you planning to convince all the creatures in the world to become vegans? Please watch Non-Speciesist Suffering in the articles section before you answer

How does your conventional way deals with the “natural suffering” that comes with age? What about diseases? Will you convince all the germs to stop harming too? What about accidents? And we don’t mean just car accidents, any unplanned bad thing that happens to everyone all the time, can you stop that too?

As long as there are sentient creatures on this planet, there will be violence, exploitation and suffering. Someone will always suffer for someone else. Choosing life is choosing suffering. The math is very simple. Most of the creatures suffer most of the time. A non-speciesist perspective, a point of view that doesn’t favor the interests of one species over another, necessarily leads to the conclusion that this world has to be stopped. Suffering is an inherent part of life. There is no social idea that can change that.

What more do you need to know? The current world situation is not enough? All the ignorant, apathetic and stupid responses you get all the time from people you talk to about animal rights are not enough? History is not enough?
Learn from history, it always repeats itself. Only the setting and the performers change. The change should be internal and there is no chance for that to happen.
You can’t change the genetic imperative of all the living creatures. The only way is to get rid of the mechanisms which are responsible for all the suffering - the survival and reproduction mechanisms.

Hearing an argument like "it will take a lot of time and the chances are very small to succeed", from an animal rights activist when facing the only idea that can end all the suffering in the world and which is the only irreversible one, is really a huge disappointment.
Where is your active spirit? You are not waiting for humans to become vegans by themselves, right? You do something about it, right? Well it’s about time you deal with the real problem.
If you think that the world would be a better place without sentient creatures, do something about it!

What can I do?

In order to reach creative ideas and breakthroughs, we shouldn’t think of what has been done so far, or what we think is possible, we must constantly think how to change reality into what we believe it should be.

Only one positive thing ever came out of the decades-old conventional "animal rights" movement - mature, experienced and highly dedicated activists who are now ready to get serious, drop everything else and focus only on the one solution to end the suffering.

It's time for you to subdue your fixated thoughts about nonviolent approach and about the effectiveness of the movement and join the effort to stop all the suffering in the world.
This is not a cliché or a slogan. It’s not romantic naiveness of inexperienced activists or grown fantasists. It is an experienced and realistic quest to a sufferingless world.

The process is likely to be a long and a difficult one, we are aware of that. But we find the level of effort and the time it might take irrelevant. Only one fact is relevant - it is accomplishable. Ending the suffering is possible. Various technologies that are able to cause massive scale effects exist. We need to find them and learn to use them in the right way.

You might refer to this idea (which you probably didn’t hear of for the first time through the O.O.S movement, we are sure) as a fantasy or as a too complicated project, but you can't tell or even make any rough estimation since you haven’t started yet.
Maybe it is much simpler than it seems. Maybe some of you already have some of the needed knowledge. Maybe some of you are already connected to people that have access to information or means required. We still don’t have enough data to estimate the complexity, if it is complicated at all. Maybe a brilliant scientist will be convinced and the method will come from there, who knows.
For now, two things are for sure - the first is that none of us knows until we start conducting research and the second is a simple statistic fact - the more of us trying, the greater the chances of success. On the other hand, as long as nobody tries, it would never happen and the suffering will continue.

Although indeed accomplishable, it won't be as easy as pushing a red button, we need any possible help. That is why, instead of starting by launching our own research, we formed the O.O.S. This is the birth of the movement.

We are promoting an ambitious idea but we are not pretentious people, so our first decision as a group was to create more of us.
It can be a good idea for some of you too. Spread the word. Talk to the right people. You know who they are.
Give them our CD (we have a DVD version of our website in case the site goes down and a partial version on a CD in case you don’t have a DVD. You can send us an email with an address and we will send you a free copy or you can burn your own DVD version).
Think of ways to create conversations about the subject. "Just" raising the questions and the idea in the minds of people that care enough, is a good start.

You can discuss the issue in animal rights forums. Publish a fanzine. And only if you don’t find it too problematic (considering the usual attendees) you can place our CD in your local infoshop.
You can build a support website to this one, or better yet - build a whole new one.

Think of other creative ways to multiply the number of people who will devote their lives to stop all the suffering. Share these ways on our forum and guestbook, that way others across the world would be able to implement them as well.
Remember to act cautiously. Talk about it only with people you trust. Use secure communication like PGP, Proxy, Cybercafés and etc for internet use and prefer personal meetings over emails, chats, online video conferences and of course cell phones.

Imagine that in a matter of only a few years 5% of the committed activists of the animal rights movement, that up until now have dedicated themselves to organize demonstrations and conventional campaigns, are taking their devotion, talent and motivation and focusing only on finding a way to stop the suffering. Hundreds of cells, individuals and groups, spread world wide, distributing the annihilation idea, forming varied research crews, each with its own unique perspectives and resources, finding ways of sharing knowledge and experience with one another (cautiously) - all exploring leads and directions. All with only one goal in mind.

As an attempt to enlarge the O.O.S movement, you can devote your entire activity concentrating completely on the conventional movement. Gradually and patiently influencing the views within the movement would be setting the foundations necessary for O.O.S cells to rise. The more the idea circulates and drifts in the air- the more it becomes a legitimate debate and the number of activists considering it will multiply.

Those of you who won’t choose to focus on the movement establishment, should start conducting research, investigate and learn more about the potential possibilities. We believe (and hope) you know more activists that care enough and who are obligated enough for the mission. Associate with them and start the research cell.

To our knowledge a few groups have already started in different places in the world. Openly presenting detailed practical data is of course out of the question, however some information (naturally more background info) can be discussed more freely. It’s up to every cell’s judgment at each stage of course, but we do ask to use communication as careful as possible.
If we exchange information, the chances would significantly rise. Through meetings, discussions and global brainstorming, ideas will come and ways will be found.
By ‘only’ ruling out false methods for other groups, we can significantly promote the only one solution idea. One cell’s failure would fertile the ground from which tens of other cells draw their ideas.

You can never tell where and how your lead may come up. Even TV programs can be a source for inspiration and even provide some background information, going through varied scientific websites (entire courses and textbooks are available online), books and journals can be a good start.
We gathered some basic links and articles that deal with several scientific topics. These are of course only a tip of the iceberg.
The list of useful sources is practically endless. We would like you to share any material you believe may hold important information. Please do so over the pages of our forum and guestbook or by mail (using PGP) and we’ll upload them to the website.

Here are some leads that according to the short study we've done so far seem to hold potential. These 6 are mere examples and we're detailing them here not so you fix your mind on them, but to trigger your creativity so you can get started.

Pathogens and Biotechnology
Pandemics and the way you should examine them
Carbon Sinks
Albedo
Methane Hydrates
Volcanic Global Effects

Before you begin, almost needless to say - drop every other type of activism.
Think about all the time you have wasted on the efforts to convince such a small number of people. Can you really hand out another leaflet or shout another slogan knowing that at the same time you could start building a new O.O.S cell?!

We realize this is a 180 degrees turn, from daydreaming of a vegan world to taking steps so there would be no world. We know that time is needed to internalize it. We have been there. We realize it might be hard to feel part of a movement while all of its members are anonymous, working in underground cells. Keep in mind that at hundreds of other locations there are people as committed as you are, feeling more or less the same, taking their first step in making history. Making suffering a history.

Please don’t automatically dismiss the idea as an unrealistic fantasy and get back to your cozy familiar position in your organization. Even if you have doubts whether it’s possible - at least try. At least take the time and effort of researching. At least speak with relevant people, to you it may sound totally hopeless but to another person, at another place, with different background and knowledge it may sound as if he is already half-way there.

If you agree this insane world must be stopped, if you wish for suffering to cease, then you must try. Initial thoughts about the likelihood of success are irrelevant because you don’t know what the chances are and because as extensively explained all along the website the conventional activism can’t stop the suffering.
The image of a world with no battery cages, no slaughterhouses, restraining devices or wars is the strongest motivation of all.
The animals are counting on you. You know by now that only you and other O.O.S members can save them.

It's no fantasy. It's simple math. The more the O.O.S message is passed, the greater are the chances of success .The more research cells formed world wide- the better are the chances of bringing the day that no one suffers.

Our power lies in our numbers and diversity. Each single cell may stand a small chance of success, but this is not the case for hundreds of cells with hundreds of different varied points of view, approaches, ideas, abilities, resources and methods. The cell with the right lead and the right resources and resourcefulness is bound to come along. It's simple statistics. All it takes is for one group to succeed, and the suffering will be stopped forever.