Animal Rights Strategy in 2026: Why the Declaration of Independence Might Be the Answer | Rising Anxieties

Uh, not that I don't usually... well, I don't usually enjoy looking at the... I enjoy talking about them and being sarcastic about them, but looking at them is dreary. Anyway, it's my birthday, so I get to do what I want. And after all, you don't have to listen, so it's, it's really all fine, I think.

And, uh, don't forget, uh, we're a podcast, we're on YouTube. Please subscribe and hit like wherever you listen. Supposed to say that first. And um, I'm recording this on Monday, which is my birthday, and I don't know where we're gonna be as this country, as a world as whatever, on Tuesday, which is when this will go up, so I don't know. But is my, this is, this is important in the context of what I wanted to say.

It is my 76th birthday, and I'm wearing my necklace that Jasmin made me, which is made up of 76 trombones. She's very clever, you know, what can I say?

Alright, anxiety. It's something we are all familiar with these days. Um, there is, after all a war going on, uh, some people seem to be oblivious to it. Most do not.

Most seem to realize that, uh, yeah, this is not good. Um, the, the president is behaving, to put it charitably, erratically, uh, and he seems to be, um, in charge even more than presidents are supposed to be. But you know, that's how this all works when people start to grab power. Um, the military is bizarre. Uh, you know, everybody talks about how great the US military is, but there's Pete Hegseth and he's a strange, strange guy.

And, um, a lot of people, including myself, are counting on the midterms because of course Trump's popularity is plummeting, but that's November and God knows what they're gonna do between now and then. I don't mean to be scary, but you know, we all kind of know this. So I don't think it's that bad for me to say it.

And, um, I think that we are in a particularly vulnerable spot because we're all aware of what the public is willing to ignore when it comes to animals, the public who is by and large animal loving in their own heads, and what they're willing to put up with when it comes to animals. So we're particularly prone to thinking that things can go very wrong.

Um, we've, we've just seen how huge the industry has grown. We have seen how efforts to stop it, you know, are are, are not fast enough or not good enough, in spite of the facts that people do care. The, the, the constant question of what's going on with people, um, but we need a way forward. And I thought, um, I thought I'd offer a few thoughts because I've been having a few thoughts. And what the hell? It's my birthday. It's my birthday.

All right. So, um, science I think is hugely important here because it used to be that just like there were animal lovers, there were people who didn't care about animals, and it was all fine. Like whatever you wanted to do was optional, but that's not really the truth anymore because I mean, there's always been science, but there's more and more and more science demonstrating that animals are complicated, emotional, able to suffer. I mean, obviously, like all that stuff, the science is just exploding. Alright, so one of the issues that I think we've always faced in the movement is that we have a lot of different theories. They used to be more hostile to each other, which I don't think is as much anymore, but they still, they don't fit together.

It's hard to fit them together to seek the same thing, if that makes sense. Um, you know, like incremental welfare reforms, um, you know, for the effective altruists. Then, uh, and spreading veganism, which I think almost everybody is on board, but there are still some people who think of themselves as animal rights, people who aren't vegan.

But I, you know, even the effective altruists who are actually working in it are vegan. Um, so their personal behavior, but whether it's useful to spread veganism when we have had such an unbelievably difficult time getting, making headway there. You know, that's, that's maybe not very effective. And then there are the ideas about non-human rights, the Non-human Rights Project, and others who, who, who are taking a very philosophical basis for their advocacy work of thinking about the fundamental rights of non-human animals and what they should be, which is really powerful as a thought and really hard to put into policy.

And then of course there's the rescue movement, which is bringing attention to these individual animals who are part of this greater whole. So they're just representative of the greater whole and, in particular, trying to reach people emotionally, uh, which I think is very powerful 'cause people have very strong emotions when it comes to animals.

All right, so those are all like these theories of change moving forward. And you know, there's probably stuff I've left out, undoubtedly. But they all, I'm trying to think, is there a way that they could all support the same thing? Um, with a very big picture goal, but an incremental progress. I mean, of course this is, you know, this question that has been dogging animal rights activists since as long as I can remember.

Uh, it's not like I have the answer, but it's just, you know, once again, I am revisiting this idea. I wrote that Substack, which I talked about before on the podcast, if you heard that, called existential welfare. Trying to find a welfare reform that is... that looks like it's doable, but is actually something that the industry couldn't possibly put into effect.

There are a lot of things like that, uh, that people think, Oh, well, yeah, they could, they could let the animals go outside. Uh, of course they can't, you know, uh, if you know anything about it. But, uh, trying to find something like that and, and also trying to think in terms of non-human rights, which I think has been a very powerful thought, but hard to put into practice because the goal, the non-human right, that has been been basically put forward by habeas corpus and whatever is freedom and, and that's turned out to be hard to figure out how to do on an incremental basis. Um, it just so happens, as I mentioned, that I turned 76 today. Thus the 76 trombones and I turned 76 in the same year as the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

I just feel like there's a theme here. Uh, what do you think? I'm gonna go with it. Um, alright. I'm gonna quote. The Declaration of Independence starts off, this is obviously language you've heard before, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna read it out just a couple of sentences. When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another... I know so far, not particularly relevant... and to assume among the powers of the earth... the powers of the earth. They were thinking in very big terms, which is not, you don't have to limit that to humans. And they go on to say, The separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitled them well, the laws of nature and nature's God.

Whoever nature's God is, I'm not sure what they meant by that. That sounds like a compromise term, anyway. Uh, entitle them, that, that definitely isn't limited to just humans. I don't know. Animals are part of nature. Um, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes, which impel them to the separation.

And that's what I'm doing. I'm declaring the causes. Um, well, not really, but sort. And then the next line, which is of course really the famous one, We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I know it says men, but you know, obviously we have all come to accept that that what they meant or what they actually should have meant by men was, was something far different than what they did mean. And it did, they didn't include women and didn't include all men. Or maybe they, some of 'em didn't and some of 'em didn't. I don't know. Um, but that's definitely a word that has already been shown to be fudgy that we could fool with.

So by laws of nature, when they were talking about laws of nature. Maybe that would be expanded beyond what they were thinking, which seemed to be limited to humans. Obviously, nature applies to animals, but the really important point I think to think about is the rights that needed to be protected. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And what would they be when applied to animals, and I think they should all be applied to animals, but There's, there's different strategic issues involved in applying them all to animals.

One, life. Do animals have a right to life? I mean, obviously a right to life is not absolute. People are killed in within the law, but it's pretty absolute and it's pretty big, and it's pretty black or white. Like if animals have a right to life, then it's wrong to kill them. Except for, unless you have like a really good reason, like self-defense or something. So that's really hard. Like how, how do you pass that law?

Alright, liberty. I think people, there is already some acknowledgement that animals need some sort of freedom, even in, you know, even in pretty minimal terms. But since they can't be completely free, particularly domesticated animals, we can't just let them go. That's what people always said. What if you just let all the animals go? Well, obviously that's not possible. We have to think in different terms.

So what freedom or liberty means has to be flexible. Because it, you can't just set all the animals free, even if you wanted to, which you don't. Um, because this is also ending up being very big. Its implications are very big, giving animals freedom. Um, like so, so they come up with ideas of freedom that are too small, like cage free. That is basically a, a liberty concept. Cage free. But it's such a tiny, tiny, tiny little, itty bitty bit of liberty to be out of the cage and into the crowded barn.

I mean, there's also the five freedoms, which is what you know, uh, has long been like the touchstone of animal welfare and is ridiculous because we don't do any of these things. And, um, that's put in terms of freedom. They're mostly freedom to, I mean, freedom from. Freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort, freedom from pain, injury or disease.

But there's also freedom to express normal behavior. Wow. We definitely don't do that. We don't do any of these. I mean, they're not free of pain. They're not, it's certainly not freedom from discomfort. Oh my God. There's also freedom from fear of distress. They're not free.

So these are, I guess, uh. Like a goal, but we're not, I mean, we, they, they're like a joke. They're just like a joke. We don't do any of these things. And if we did, the world would be completely different. Alright. So, so it's hard to imagine a theory based on, um, the right to life or, um, the right to liberty because, not because they shouldn't be rights, but because they're too big.

But, so that's why I'm focusing on the, the, the beautifully expressed, I love this term, the pursuit of happiness. I mean, it's such a great phrase. Uh, it's not a guarantee of happiness. Governments can't guarantee happiness to people, but they can try to guarantee to them the right to pursue their own happiness. And sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Governments don't control all of reality, and it's not black or white like a right to life would be.

There are, there are a lot of different types and sources of happiness. So you could be allowed to pursue happiness in one way that is considered very important, but maybe not in another way. You could, you could break up all of the different sticks that make up the, the group of, uh, of, of behaviors that make up the happiness, or potential happiness, a happiness that can be pursued.

And, uh, so it can be broken down. And I, I'm gonna, I already chose an example when I wrote that substack of the, the example. An example that I, I think is almost undeniably a source of happiness. And that in most people's minds could be provided to animals and should be provided to animals.

And that is the right to raise your own young. It's fundamentally a source of happiness for humans and for many, not all, animals. You know, some of them lay the eggs and leave and, and it has to be guided by science. But for mammals, and I think probably birds, uh, this, I think most people understand this is a fundamental right and it's separable.

You don't have to grant all of the ways that you could pursue happiness in order to grant this one. I don't know. Are you with me? I feel like, I feel like I'm in court making an argument and the judges are just blank stare. I don't, that's how I feel. Um, so that's where I am.

Animals have a fundamental right to, to whatever, fill in the blank, but I'm filling it in with a right to raise their young, if they are the kind of animal that is devoted to raising their young, which so many animals are. I mean, if they're mammals, that's basically what defines a mammal.

There, you know, or, or some other right that everyone could agree on that... you know, the right to go outside once in a while. Most people would think that's like reasonable. Like how do you pursue happiness without ever getting out of the barn? Um, and things that would make sense to people, but you could, you could just go for that. And maybe everybody on that list of all the people who have different theories about how we should do this, maybe they could get on board.

Am I being naive? Probably, but you know, whatever. It's my birthday. Um, and also in order to get on board with agreeing that animals should give be given this right, you wouldn't have to go vegan. Nobody would be conceding that animals don't have a right to life or that animals... yeah, they wouldn't be conceding that animals don't have a right to life, but they, we are just not dealing with that at the moment. We're just dealing with this one particular right. Um, and so nobody has to concede it, but nobody has to agree with it either. So you don't actually have to go vegan to get on board, but hopefully, you know, it would start you thinking and, you know, once, once anybody starts thinking seriously about animals, it goes places. And usually it goes to um, veggie burgers and uh, maybe that's a place to start to build a bigger tent 'cause that's what we need to do.

We need to get a tent that can hold all of the people who care about animals 'cause that is really a lot of people. But it's sure ain't everybody. So, uh, we really wanna get them on board, the ones who do. And you know that almost all of the people you know care something about animals.

Uh, alright, so that's my spiel for the day. Has nothing to do with what the industry's worried about, but it's my birthday, as I keep saying. So if you're still here, thank you for indulging me.

Don't forget to subscribe, like, and comment, don't say anything bad, on your favorite podcatcher or on YouTube. And tune into the other podcasts, of course, The Hen Report and the Our Hen House interview. And you know, good luck. Uh, God knows what the future, even this week, holds for us all.