Civilization has always been about expanding our net of compassion. It has always been about including more into our consideration -- about making this consideration between groups more equal. It may be the separation of race, in segregation or slavery. Or it may be the separation of class, in capitalism or feudalism. These separations and distinctions, which make one group subordinate and dominated to another group, are based on devaluing another. They are based on considering someone else as less capable of suffering, as less deserving of joy, as unworthy of enlightenment and peace. And, in some cases, in entirely denying that the exploited even have a right to life.

     Of all groups that have been pushed and kicked, that have been chained and shackled -- of all members of race, nationality, religion, and culture to be disregarded, abused, and completely dominated -- none can compare with the condition of animals. Theirs is a condition that has existed throughout all cultures. They have always been property, owned and controlled. Those cultures that consider them holy, like the Hindus, still sacrifice them by the millions. Even Native American religionists, who consider the earth to be sacred, see no injustice in killing the parts of the planet that are most capable of feeling.

     The scope of this injustice is far wider, and its depth, too, far deeper. It is not only that animals are everywhere exploited for their flesh. But it is the amount that are lost in this process. Billions and billions are slaughtered every year. They fulfill no task more glorious than filling human bodies with cancers and diseases. In terms of suffering, there is no slavery, no massacre, and no genocide that even compares with the oppression of animal kind. The amount of animal life lost in a single week, or even a single day, would be comparable to the most tragic moments of oppressed peoples. But this is using suffering strictly as the basis of measurement for oppression.

     The difference be humans and animals is as superficial as the difference between human beings of differing cultures, religions, or nationalities. The closer a culture is to resembling our own, the more we associate with it. The more we understand and sympathize with the emotions of its adherents. So, too, with animal kind. We see social behavior, such as families and clans, in all types of mammals and birds. And in watching this behavior, it doesn't take very long for us to figure out generally what is happening. Consciousness is so similar across the different species that there is an almost universal language pattern. Even without having any previous exchanges, animals know how to express rage, sympathy, and irritation at other animals.

     In other animals, like reptiles and insects and fish, human beings become less sympathetic. The shape and form of the organism makes them less sympathetic to its suffering. Its misery is considered less valuable, because it is less able to communicate it. This is often the attitude of those who never really consider their relationship with animals as a social relationship. In fact, many of them do not consider it a relationship at all, because they do not recognize animal life as having its own independent self-interests.

     If there is any reason for valuing a human being, then there is every reason to value all animal life. In our senses, our suffering, and our happiness, we are essentially the same. We socialize among ourselves, and we see this among animal life, too -- from the biggest, like a herd of whales, to the smallest, like a colony of ants. We see that they react to individuals in particular ways, that they retain memories of past events and use in determining their future. If we value human beings, if we give moral value to human life, then it must extend to all animal life.

     We only value human beings because they are capable of love, happiness, and suffering. Our understanding and compassion for humanity would be a rickety foundation without giving equal rights to animal life. If we hold humans to be deserving of justice, because they have a consciousness, but we do not hold the same for animals, we would have a morality based on a contradiction -- we would have ethics based on lies. And then, whatever act we took on behalf of that morality, would necessarily be deformed, since it springs forward from a deformed morality.

     Those who are unwilling to give this type of equality towards animalkind are generally those who do not value all human beings. Those who consider one race or nationality or religion to be supreme and dominant over all the rest. Where one states that one group of humans should control the other group, that one group is inferior and should submit -- these people often have no problem with giving no consideration to animalkind. If you can make a racial or nationality distinction between human beings, then there is no contradiction in making a distinction on grounds of species.

     Animal life is capable of suffering and happiness, misery and joy, enthusiasm and hope. Sympathy comes from understanding these emotions, giving meaningful connections to them, and then acting through these thoughts. The first act that we can take in responding to our sympathy for animal life is in not eating in them -- in refusing to participate in the murder of billions. Extending our morality of consciousness to all life must necessarily start with Vegetarianism.