This blog post takes an in-depth look at how far animal rights should be respected within the mechanization of modern production processes.
I read Yuval Noah Harari’s book Sapiens. In the section addressing the mechanization of modern production processes, I encountered the idea that production processes involving farm animals have also been mechanized, and that animals are now treated like machines. Although the overall focus was more on the mechanization of production processes than on animal rights, the issue of animal rights resonated more strongly with me.
Animal rights is one of the important topics that has emerged in modern times. In the past, human survival was an urgent problem, so little attention was paid to the treatment of animals. However, human survival is no longer an urgent problem today. In this environment, animal rights, which were not widely discussed in the past, are now gaining prominence. For example, when food was scarce in the past, hunting animals for food was a vital activity, and the painful death of animals in that process was not considered a major issue. Today, however, the cruel suffering animals endure during slaughter is recognized as a social problem. So, to what extent should animal rights be respected?
A prime example where animal rights are most problematic is the issue of livestock farming, also discussed in Harari’s book Sapiens. In the past, large-scale farming was rare, so animals could be raised in somewhat natural environments. For instance, cows grazed in fields, and chickens roamed freely in yards. Even today, some farms still raise animals with some respect for their needs. However, the situation is different in facilities mass-producing meat or milk. Chickens raised for eggs are confined in spaces so cramped they can barely move, and this reality is constantly raised as a problem. In facilities mass-producing milk, cattle breeds are sometimes selectively bred solely for milk production. This approach cannot benefit the animals, and indeed, there is ample evidence that animals in such environments suffer extreme stress.
The key point to note here is that these environments do not pose a threat to the animals’ survival. From the perspective of those seeking profit, an animal’s death represents a loss, so management will ensure survival is not hindered. Nevertheless, the fact that animals endure extreme suffering signifies that they possess instincts and desires—that is, animal rights. Harari’s Sapiens also touches on this: “Objectively speaking, this calf no longer needs its mother or playmates for survival or reproduction. However, from the calf’s perspective, it still feels a strong desire to bond with its mother and play with other calves. If this desire remains unfulfilled, the calf experiences severe distress.” This shows that even when survival isn’t threatened, animals can suffer mental anguish if their needs aren’t met.
This fact was proven through experiments conducted by psychologist Harry Harlow in the 1950s. Harlow separated newborn baby monkeys from their mothers and provided two types of dolls. One was made of wire and attached to a milk bottle, while the other was wrapped in cloth to resemble a mother monkey but lacked a milk bottle. If survival were the sole consideration, the baby monkeys would logically choose the wire doll. However, the infants preferred the cloth-covered doll and spent most of their time with it. This indicates that animals possess social needs unrelated to survival, and suppressing these can cause serious problems for them.
Furthermore, extensive research has been conducted on the physical pain animals feel, revealing that some animals experience pain just like humans. Lobsters are one such example. In fact, Swiss law prohibits boiling lobsters alive in water. This stems from scientists discovering that lobsters possess a highly developed nervous system, enabling them to feel pain like humans.
Thus, there are sufficient reasons to respect animal rights. However, the extent to which these rights should be honored is a matter requiring deep consideration. While animal rights are recognized in today’s society, they are not sufficiently valued. While treating animal rights as completely equal to human rights may be unrealistic, I believe they should be treated with little difference. In other words, current animal rights are inadequate, and animals deserve greater respect than they currently receive. While treating humans and animals as completely equal may be difficult, we should at least reach a level slightly below that. This argument stems from the fact that animals possess self-awareness, have desires, and experience happiness and suffering. Although many people do not acknowledge this, I believe there is no special reason to consider animals with such characteristics as inferior to humans. The problem lies not with the animals, but with us, who fail to consider things from their perspective.
A similar case can be made for human rights. Today, all people are respected as equal human beings, and this is considered common sense. However, in the past, the extent of human rights differed based on race or gender. It took a long time for people to even respect each other as equal human beings. For instance, did slave owners truly view their slaves as equal human beings? Probably not. While respect and consideration might have existed among people of similar status who weren’t slaves, this likely didn’t extend to slaves. Because they didn’t see the other party as an equal human being, they could commit inhumane acts without feeling guilt. Similarly, past trends of disregarding and oppressing women, the history of not viewing Black people as equal human beings, and violent oppression during colonial rule can all be understood within this same context. These were all events that occurred because the other party was not seen as being on an equal footing.
I believe the issue of animal rights is similar. That is, animals have sufficient reason to be respected, but current societal attitudes prevent this from happening. There is no clear basis for viewing animals as inferior to humans. However, there are also practical issues. Specifically, the survival of humanity. We realistically have no choice but to kill animals to live. While technology may advance in the distant future to fully protect animal rights, this is an uncertain future. Therefore, I believe complete equal treatment between humans and animals is impossible at present. No matter how much we strive to respect animals, fully respecting them is difficult in a reality where vast numbers are slaughtered daily. Furthermore, all rights come with responsibilities, and whether animals can truly shoulder such responsibilities like humans is also unknown. If humans seek to respect animals, but animals do not respect humans, problems are inevitable. For these reasons, while treating animals as completely equal to humans is difficult, my opinion is that we must respect them within the scope of what is possible.
No one takes issue with kicking a stone lying on the street. A stone is merely a collection of particles, lacking a self or a nervous system capable of feeling pain. Animals, however, are different. Animals possess a self and are fully capable of experiencing physical and mental suffering. This is an empirically and experimentally proven fact. Knowing this, I believe it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals for economic reasons or because respecting them is inconvenient. While respect for animals is currently lacking and the social climate is insufficient for full respect to be achieved—it will take time—I hope that, just as human rights did in the past, as people’s awareness improves, the day will come when respect for animal rights is fully realized.
