Category: Animal Abuse

The need for animal models and proficient practice by personnel in research are still debatable issues. There are some points in my rapid response that I do support and against.

Firstly, personal religious beliefs or emotions should not interfere researcher’s decision-making. Researchers are obligated to make decisions rationally based on logical findings. This also applies to the ethical issue that I did not mention in my rapid response, which is Joanna did not conduct the research with rationality. Rationality is the need to take action based on sensible reason. This dilemma did not mention how animals are used in the trial and there is the absence of adequate scientific reasonings for rejecting the usage of animal models. She has to do more deep studies to analyze which methodology is statistically more suitable for chemical agent testing, so experiments can be conducted with minimum harm and productive results are obtainable.

Furthermore, my comment on researchers lacking in ethical education and professionalism was wrong because I learned that several legislations have been implemented such as the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 that ensures a standard level of expertise is being fulfilled by researchers. For example, this act stated that a research team must obtain licenses before conducting animal research. These regulations ensure that detailed project editorial policy must be established first and strictly reviewed by the authority. This can reassure that structured experiment is tightly regulated with moral obligation consideration to prevent unnecessary experiment conduction or invasive exploitation of animals.

My rapid response regarding the lack of good handling procedures, leading to a shortage of food supplies and the occurrence of animal abuse was wrong because the dilemma did not mention why the trial using nonhuman animals is not conducted due to those reasons. According to the Animal Welfare Act 2016, procedures in handling animals like providing adequate food and a suitable living environment are primary criteria that must be met by a research team to produce good animal models. This practice aids in inducing better performances by animals concurrently and can reinforce the role of personnel in maintaining animals’ mental and physical health. Inspections conducted by authorities can ensure no mistreatment issues occur as the prosecution will be given to the license holder for any offenses.

I support my initial comment on animal replacement using human cell culture because this dilemma did not mention that cell assay is not suitable for chemical agent toxicity testing. Pre-screening using human tissues can be considered first before proceeding to animal trials as it provides accurate predictions of the agent’s effect on humans. Animals are not physiologically similar to us, many trials failed to produce the desired effect on humans despite being successful in animals, leading to waste of time and money. In my opinion, animal involvement in this trial is not necessary because of the world’s advanced evolution in technology, discoveries of alternatives that can produce statistically similar and valid results have increased. Therefore, strategic alternative options should be explored first, allowing the achievement of outcomes with the greatest benefits.

Public awareness and acceptance of protecting animals’ rights have increased as numerous organizations have sought to strengthen the policy of animal research by advocating the importance of implementing the three Rs (3Rs)-replacement, reduction, and refinement. Refinement encourages researchers to train animals to induce desired performance rather than forcing animals to perform trials against their natural ability. This approach can greatly reduce invasive procedures and support the non-maleficence principle. Reduction aids in minimizing the number of animals used per experiment. This technique ensures researchers implement the theory of beneficence by prioritizing their responsibility to well-designed an experiment and obtain the best practice to alleviate the need for multiple models. Replacement is to seek alternative methods to replace or eliminate the need for vertebrates. Many successful findings only involve in-vitro techniques yet produce high-precision data, such as using three-dimensional cell models that mimic the function of real human organs in the body system. This scientifically suggests that the need for animal models is not mandatory in all trials.

In conclusion, I agree that animal usage in this dilemma is needed only if other options are impossible. It must be conducted with ethical principles and 3Rs implementation. I agree that using animal models in trials is beneficial because it has benefited both humans and animals for decades in disease and drug treatment discovery. In unison, ideas of complete animals replacement by other alternatives are still not solid enough as there is room for improvement and high possibilities for improvement to increase animal rights. Therefore, researchers are responsible for conducting research and developing more reliable alternatives that emphasize accuracy, consequentialism, and reproducibility.

Green criminology refers to the study of environmental crime and harm affecting human and non-human life, ecosystems, and the biosphere – more specifically analyzing the causes, consequences, and prevalence of environmental crime and harm, the responses to and prevention of environmental crime and harm by the legal system and by non-governmental entities and social movements, as well as the meaning and mediated representations of environmental crime and harm (Brosnan and South, 2018). Moreover, it can be argued that the pursuit of our interests has led us to the ecological situation that we are now in. This argument leads to the theory of anthropocentrism, which is defined as the belief that value is human-centered and that all other beings are means to human ends – in an anthropocentric ethic, nature deserves moral consideration because how nature is treated affects humans as a result. From an anthropocentric perspective, humans are viewed as separate from, rather than part of, the world’s ecosystems and the integrity of these non-human ecosystems or entities (e.g. air, plants, soil, water) is of concern only insofar as they stand to benefit the human species. Under anthropocentrism, little consideration is given to the idea that human welfare is wholly dependent on the long-term survival of non-human entities (. ref

‘There is as yet no ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it – The extension of ethics to this third element in (the) human environment is – an evolutionary possibility and ecological necessity.’

Leopold sometimes referred to as the father of environmental ethics, expressed his anthropocentric beliefs over 50 years ago in his revolutionary essay ‘The Land Ethic’ – which is interesting to consider as today, we have not accomplished the ‘ecological necessity’ he called for. This brings us to the question, how do we establish a sustainable relationship within the ecosphere we depend?

This furthermore suggests that the primacy of humanity, through relegating animal life to insentient objects with the core purpose of production alludes to the scales of value, and how nature and the value of nature within the Anthropocene is relegated to just ‘providing a service’.

Environmentally concerned authors have argued that anthropocentrism is ethically wrong and at the root of the ecological crises

The environmental crime stated forms, causation, and impact

Despite animal welfare being increasingly protected within domestic jurisdictions, animal rights are still hardly recognized. In May 2018, previous US president Donald Trump, when discussing illegal border crossings stated ‘We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in – and we’re stopping a lot of them – but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals.’ Such dehumanization (in this instance – of foreigners at the Californian-Mexican border) has historically been a standard discursive strategy used to facilitate violence committed by humans against other humans, by disregarding the rights of humans and degrading them to that of animals, it almost endorses the harm imputed on animals. Furthermore, animals have been protected by objective standards rather than through rights in a growing number of states around the world. The primacy of humanity, through relegating animal life to simply food or farming, etc. reiterates the scales of value (anthropocentrism, zoocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism)

Interactions established with other life on earth, whether it be with humans, animals, or nature, are complex and diverse and indicate different levels of moral concern. As regards who, or what is included in the bioethical community, four domains are classically considered – anthropocentrism, zoocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism; anthropocentrism considers that only human morals are of importance, zoocentrism includes other animals as having morals alongside humans, biocentrism offers moral standing to all living beings, and ecocentrism expands all moral concern to include all nature, whether it be living or non-living e.g. the ecosphere.

Animal abuse is said to result from ignorance about the abusive consequences of our behavior toward animals, the belief that abuse is justified, and the perception that abuse is personally beneficial. Social and behavioral scientists have paid little attention to the causes of animal abuse, despite the pervasive nature of such abuse and the tremendous suffering involved; Bryant and Snizek (1993) in fact, have gone as far as to state that ‘no area of human-animal behavior is more neglected than animal-related crime and deviance’. Beirne (1995, 1998) has also commented on this neglect and has called on criminologists to devote more attention to this issue. It’s important to analyze the root causes of animal abuse for two reasons; first, animals are worthy of moral consideration in their own right, moral philosophers, social theorists, and feminist theorists have made compelling arguments to this effect, although there is still some debate over the precise moral status of animals. Moreover, survey data suggests that most US citizens grant animals some moral consideration (Nibert, 1994)

It can be argued that masculinities play a significant influence in animal cruelty and abuse (Nurse, 2020), and it is well-known in an academic debate that criminality is mostly a male issue (Groombridge, 1998). Masculine-based animal harm is also connected to other forms of offending, such as in domestic contexts, where animal harm is a means for men to display and validate their masculinity in difficult social contexts. As a result, animal harm may be linked to male control, where a perceived loss of power or challenge to masculine authority may result in animal cruelty. As a result, animal cruelty is arguably used to reestablish masculinity, and animal victimization is part of a larger concept of victimization of the defenseless; however, relying on prison as a primary deterrent or consequence may be counterproductive, encouraging the very masculinities that underpin criminal behavior. The public policy response to ‘masculine crimes,’ defined as crimes of a distinctly masculine nature and with stereotypically masculine behaviors (Nurse 2013a), indicates acceptance of male criminals’ proclivity for violence and is comparable to that used for organized crime (Nurse 2012, 2013a). therefore-

Agricultural intensification is based on an agricultural modernization narrative that measures progress in terms of efficiency and productivity gains. Following WWII, dairy systems in the EU, North America, Australia, and New Zealand grew rapidly (Friedberg, 2009). Traditionally, livestock producers produced both meat and dairy, but specialized dairy farms have become more frequent. The dairy sector was further revolutionized by the shift from pasture-based to confinement feeding systems, which enabled constant output year-round to meet the expanding demand for milk. Individual cows, farms, and dairy production regions all benefited from these processes; for example, the US dairy herd produced three times as much milk in 2001 as it did in 1950, although having 30% fewer cows (Blayney, 2002). Larger herds, breeding technologies, indoor housing feeding, energy, and protein-dense commercial feeds, antibiotics and growth hormones, and specialized workers or machines are all part of farm specialization and mechanization strategies. Cows are artificially inseminated at a young age and milked for just a few years until their productivity begins to decrease due to the steep declines in animal health caused by continuous pregnancy and lactation (Oltenacu and Broom, 2010). Cows are frequently housed indoors, sometimes year-round, in highly intensive operations, with stall-feeding regimes of imported cereals and oilseed proteins to ensure consistent milk production. As a result, intensive dairy operations rely substantially on external inputs such as feed produced off-farm and carried long distances, water for animals, pasture irrigation, and infrastructure for milking and waste treatment.

Depending on farm management practices, the environmental impacts of dairy production can differ significantly (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). Intensive dairy systems’ increased dependence on inputs has the potential to worsen certain negative environmental effects, both directly and indirectly. Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), soil and water contamination, habitat loss and wildlife health, nutrient cycles (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus), and land use change are all common environmental impacts of dairy systems.

Tackling the problem

There is a need for more studies exploring the socioecological struggles that emerge amid the complexities of the agriculture industry, something that unfolds in different places over time. For instance, research might look into how transitions to intensive production and alternative production modes (such as organic) can renounce agro-industrial modes of production or, on the other hand, how they can recreate aspects of traditional production systems. Given the complicated and political nature of dairy system changes, studies should look at how systemic factors (such as farm size, supply chains, and policies) interact with social and environmental contexts (Wilson and Burton, 2015) to reduce the harm caused.

Skilled acrobats, the sound of laughter, the smell of popcorn, the sight of trained animals, and even the clowns, what’s not to enjoy?

The main focus of the night that’s purely there to perform for our entertainment is the ones who do not get any say in being there. These animals are forced to perform over and over again for the amusement of the passing crowd. Across the world, thousands of animals are being captured, taken from their natural habitat, bred in captivity, tortured, abused, kept in unsafe “homes” and suffer a lifetime of cruelty and abuse. And this is all hidden by lights, laughter, and music.

Animal performances are covered by the fun color costumes and tricks that leave the crowd amazed this disguises the fact that the animals are being held captive and being forced under threat to perform challenging, uncomfortable, and often painful acts.

Being a part of the circus often means you are moving from location to location which limits the necessities such as food and water the animals can consume. Moving locations means that the animals have to be kept somewhere during the trip, this results in them being forced to spend most of their time in cramped cages towed by trailers where there is only enough room to stand and move around, and when the animals are allowed out of their cages its only for a short time before the show starts, and even then elephants are kept in leg shackles allowing only movement of one step of each direction. The requirements set by animal welfare in Australia are being ignored. Even if lions are getting more than double the requirements set, that doesn’t get rid of their instinct to be in the wild, to run, hunt, and claim territory. According to the Victorian codes of practice for animal welfare, for any large cats such as lions, the ‘internal measurements of dens should be not less than 3 x 2.5 meters with a ceiling height of 2.1 meters’. National Geographic states that lions ‘wander a territory of 259 square kilometers’. So how could it possibly be right to keep a lion in a cage as small as 7.5m when their natural ability is to roam a territory of 259 Square kilometers?

Apes, baboons, chimpanzees, and other primates used in circuses are nothing more than being forced to live an unhappy life compared to their wild relatives. Live Science says the primates ‘tend to live in jungles, mountainous areas, and savannahs’, they also state that primates ‘are very social and live in small family groups of 2 to 6 .’ Peta.org states the ‘Primates are highly social, intelligent, and caring animals who suffer when deprived of companionship.’ Being held captive like every other animal at the circus in separated small cages with no trees or grass means that primates lack stimulation on a day-to-day basis and suffer

Physical punishment has always been the main training method for animals in the circus. Animals in the circus are yelled at, whipped, and hit to do tricks and perform, and it is not just one time, it’s over and over and over again.

But in India, many don’t feel precisely the same way. Cases of brutality and inhumanity against animals are also on the rise, and what has been done to stop them? Several laws in India have been put in place to protect and deter cruelty to animals, but very few are aware of what they are and how they operate.

In India, it is common to see crudely castrated bulls pulling carts full of huge loads and being always whipped when they rest on their way. People were peeling stones at dogs and cats out of fun and how to forget, all the ‘taming’ contests, battles, and cart races where animals like bulls, cows, and hens are handled as if they were just animated objects. In this world of progress and growth, people are increasingly losing their ethos and their values not only towards each other but also towards these poor animals.

To put an end to animal cruelty, the Central Government has passed a range of laws, the most commendable of which is the Act on the ‘Prevention of Cruelty Animals, 1960’. Apart from that, there is also the ‘Wildlife Protection Act, of 1972,’ which was developed for the protection of animal species and plants.

The Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, 1960

The Cruelty to Animals Law 1960 strictly prohibits everyone from inflicting, causing, or, if he or she is the owner, allowing any animal to receive unnecessary pain or suffering. It is a crime of killing, kicking, torturing, mutilating, administering, or cruelly killing an animal. It is also illegal for an unfit animal to be overdriven, overdriven, or overloaded. It is an offense to carry, contain, or chain an animal cruelly. It is a violation to compete or shoot animals in which animals are released from prison for shooting. If an owner fails to provide enough food, drink, or shelter, leaves an animal unreasonably, or allows any diseased or disabled animal to roam or die on any road, the owner is guilty of an offense.

Cruel treatment of animals is a criminal offence

In any of the ways defined by the Cruelty Animals Act of 1960, where the animal is tortured, or any cruel act is performed, the offender is liable to bear a fine that could extend to Rs50, and where this occurs within three years of the earlier offense. The offender shall receive a fine not less than Rs25 but can extend to Rs100 or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with both. If an animal is tortured or crucified if the offender has a vehicle, the vehicle will be confiscated, and the person will not be allowed to keep an animal in life again in the case of a twofold incident.

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

These demonstrations are for the safety of wild animals and fowls, and the interests of creatures can be defended by arrangements.

• Restrict animal sacrifice, there shall be strict disapproval for any damage to creatures under Section 39 of the Wildlife Protection Act, and penalties are referred to in Section 51 of the Law.
• The ban on keeping an Indian bird under the act is also in place. If anyone wants to keep a permissible feathered creature, they must fully agree to Article 11 of the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act of 1956.
• Police: Section 50 of the 1972 Wildlife Protection Act provides cops with a right to arrest any person without a warrant.
• Monkeys cannot be shown or owned and are also guaranteed by the Wildlife Protection Act.

Real problems persist

There are various issues concerning animal cruelty in India. They are as follows:

Cosmetic tests: In brutal, cold blood tests that attempt to check for the hazardous impacts of customer items and fixtures, a large number of creatures are now and then being damaged and killed. Different characteristics, such as mice, pigs, rabbits, and various animals, are forced to breathe a large amount of the test substance to calculate their lethal impact. Indeed there is a continuation of such cold-hearted practice, even after it was established that tests of creatures are unequipped to anticipate the effects of human skin, body, and accessibility of test methods without the use of animals. However, to help the beasts and the common-sense activists of every living creature, the center has received the principles that force the testing of beautifiers on the creature to become a national prohibition. The boycott occurred after the Bureau of the Indian Standard updated its regulations. In any case, the law has many areas where there are many escape clauses, such as boycott, because importing creatures tested is currently legally binding because the requirement for a law also disallows the transaction, and importation of things tested by creatures is legally binding.

Animals kept in battery cages: India is the third largest producer of eggs and approximately 70% of the eggs come from corporate poultry farms. Segment 11 (e) discusses in particular the space a creature should receive, but the boxes are extremely congested and do not enable the privilege of developing creatures, so the show is unmistakably negated.

A pit bull was recently found dead in Tampa, chained to a post in a shut-down house. A puppy had been burned alive in Sacramento. Dozens of men, women, and children in America are simultaneously victims of violent crimes. The links between torturers murderers of animals and perpetrators of violent crimes against people must be taken very closely.

These are terrible examples. Jeffrey Dahmer did a mass murder where he cut off cats and dogs spearing them on sticks; Albert DeSalvo known as the ‘Boston Strangler’ trapped dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through a box. While these stories are anecdotal about well-known serial killers, scientific research has shown that animal torture and human cruelty are directly connected.

Local law enforcement cannot always give top priority to incidents of animal cruelty with their limited resources. However, if we look at the link between animal crime and human violence, we would perhaps concentrate more on those who abuse livestock to prevent them from escalating into crimes against people.

As per the Humane Society of the United States, researchers found that 71 to 83% of women entering households with violence reported that their partners have abused or killed a family pet, according to Humane Society of the United States. 1 An additional study shows that pet abuse occurs in 88 percent of families in families that are supervised for their children’s physical abuse. 2 All boys involved had previously committed acts of animal cruelty in seven school shootings that took place across the country between 1997 and 2001.

Due to this increasing evidence of connections between animal violence and violent crime, those who misuse animals in states with cross-border laws requiring these professionals to report animal abuse are now on the radar of law enforcement agencies, social workers, and veterinarians.

In the case of young children and animal abuse, early intervention can stop these tendencies before they increase and include violence against persons. The National School Safety Council of the United States Education Department, the American Psychological Association, and the National Crime Prevention Council now all agree that animal cruelty is a warning to risky young people.

Steps that the public should take to stop animal abuse:

First of all, any animal abuse should be reported to local law enforcement authorities, which should prioritize arrests in such cases. In its animal cruelty legislation, only 28 states currently have provisions for counseling. Any person convicted of animal cruelty, with particular emphasis on helping children who abuse animals, should be required to provide psychological advice. This is necessary for both their own and community welfare.

Animal welfare organizations should come together to provide significant benefits for information that leads to the arrest, conviction, and effort to push this story through local media. In cases across the country, the Humane Society of the US offers rewards, often in partnership with other organizations. Not only should prosecutors request time from prison, but they should also insist that those convicted of animal cruelty should have psychological advice. The law-enforcement authorities should question suspects in violent crimes regarding any animal abuse in their previous years.

It’s a grave problem. It is also one, only if left unchecked, that will get worse. The public should ask for persecution in the widest possible measure of law of anyone abusing an animal. It’s not a matter of animal rights. It is a way of identifying and helping people who might one day be a danger to the whole community.

Conclusion

If the disciplinarians for such offenses can be tightened, the government has an imperative capacity to do so, and then the public will try to do well and will not kill blameless animals in wisdom.

In 2011, it was felt necessary to change the old law to avoid crude animals and renamed the Indian Animal Welfare Act. Despite such numerous laws, the drive is only to come when people work with the common sense bodies and associations of every living creature to promote the pitiable condition of creatures. In addition, the framework can be modified by legislative and non-governmental organizations.

The Society for the Prevention of Animal Cruelty, an NGO that can function independently without any impedance from the State, is also recommended to strengthen the framework. Because there is no such board in many countries and that one has not been complied with over a considerable period, there is also a need to ensure that the State Animal Welfare Board is operating correctly.

Those few modifications by different meetings and partners could change the situation of animals in India, and there would be no misery of any kind in our public.

The need for animal models and proficient practice by personnel in research are still debatable issues. There are some points in my rapid response that I do support and against.

Firstly, personal religious beliefs or emotions should not interfere researcher’s decision-making. Researchers are obligated to make decisions rationally based on logical findings. This also applies to the ethical issue that I did not mention in my rapid response, which is Joanna did not conduct the research with rationality. Rationality is the need to take action based on sensible reason. This dilemma did not mention how animals are used in the trial and there is the absence of adequate scientific reasonings for rejecting the usage of animal models. She has to do more deep studies to analyze which methodology is statistically more suitable for chemical agent testing, so experiments can be conducted with minimum harm and productive results are obtainable.

Furthermore, my comment on researchers lacking in ethical education and professionalism was wrong because I learned that several legislations have been implemented such as the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 that ensures a standard level of expertise is being fulfilled by researchers. For example, this act stated that a research team must obtain licenses before conducting animal research. These regulations ensure that detailed project editorial policy must be established first and strictly reviewed by the authority. This can reassure that structured experiment is tightly regulated with moral obligation consideration to prevent unnecessary experiment conduction or invasive exploitation of animals.

My rapid response regarding the lack of good handling procedures, leading to a shortage of food supplies and the occurrence of animal abuse was wrong because the dilemma did not mention why the trial using nonhuman animals is not conducted due to those reasons. According to the Animal Welfare Act 2016, procedures in handling animals like providing adequate food and a suitable living environment are primary criteria that must be met by a research team to produce good animal models. This practice aids in inducing better performances by animals concurrently and can reinforce the role of personnel in maintaining animals’ mental and physical health. Inspections conducted by authorities can ensure no mistreatment issues occur as the prosecution will be given to the license holder for any offenses.

I support my initial comment on animal replacement using human cell culture because this dilemma did not mention that cell assay is not suitable for chemical agent toxicity testing. Pre-screening using human tissues can be considered first before proceeding to animal trials as it provides accurate predictions of the agent’s effect on humans. Animals are not physiologically similar to us, many trials failed to produce the desired effect on humans despite being successful in animals, leading to waste of time and money. In my opinion, animal involvement in this trial is not necessary because of the world’s advanced evolution in technology, discoveries of alternatives that can produce statistically similar and valid results have increased. Therefore, strategic alternative options should be explored first, allowing the achievement of outcomes with the greatest benefits.

Public awareness and acceptance of protecting animals’ rights have increased as numerous organizations have sought to strengthen the policy of animal research by advocating the importance of implementing the three Rs (3Rs)-replacement, reduction, and refinement. Refinement encourages researchers to train animals to induce desired performance rather than forcing animals to perform trials against their natural ability. This approach can greatly reduce invasive procedures and support the non-maleficence principle. Reduction aids in minimizing the number of animals used per experiment. This technique ensures researchers implement the theory of beneficence by prioritizing their responsibility to well-designed an experiment and obtain the best practice to alleviate the need for multiple models. Replacement is to seek alternative methods to replace or eliminate the need for vertebrates. Many successful findings only involve in-vitro techniques yet produce high-precision data, such as using three-dimensional cell models that mimic the function of real human organs in the body system. This scientifically suggests that the need for animal models is not mandatory in all trials.

In conclusion, I agree that animal usage in this dilemma is needed only if other options are impossible. It must be conducted with ethical principles and 3Rs implementation. I agree that using animal models in trials is beneficial because it has benefited both humans and animals for decades in disease and drug treatment discovery. In unison, ideas of complete animals replacement by other alternatives are still not solid enough as there is room for improvement and high possibilities for improvement to increase animal rights. Therefore, researchers are responsible for conducting research and developing more reliable alternatives that emphasize accuracy, consequentialism, and reproducibility.

Green criminology refers to the study of environmental crime and harm affecting human and non-human life, ecosystems, and the biosphere – more specifically analyzing the causes, consequences, and prevalence of environmental crime and harm, the responses to and prevention of environmental crime and harm by the legal system and by non-governmental entities and social movements, as well as the meaning and mediated representations of environmental crime and harm (Brosnan and South, 2018). Moreover, it can be argued that the pursuit of our interests has led us to the ecological situation that we are now in. This argument leads to the theory of anthropocentrism, which is defined as the belief that value is human-centered and that all other beings are means to human ends – in an anthropocentric ethic, nature deserves moral consideration because how nature is treated affects humans as a result. From an anthropocentric perspective, humans are viewed as separate from, rather than part of, the world’s ecosystems and the integrity of these non-human ecosystems or entities (e.g. air, plants, soil, water) is of concern only insofar as they stand to benefit the human species. Under anthropocentrism, little consideration is given to the idea that human welfare is wholly dependent on the long-term survival of non-human entities (. ref

‘There is as yet no ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it – The extension of ethics to this third element in (the) human environment is – an evolutionary possibility and ecological necessity.’

Leopold sometimes referred to as the father of environmental ethics, expressed his anthropocentric beliefs over 50 years ago in his revolutionary essay ‘The Land Ethic’ – which is interesting to consider as today, we have not accomplished the ‘ecological necessity’ he called for. This brings us to the question, how do we establish a sustainable relationship within the ecosphere we depend?

This furthermore suggests that the primacy of humanity, through relegating animal life to insentient objects with the core purpose of production alludes to the scales of value, and how nature and the value of nature within the Anthropocene is relegated to just ‘providing a service’.

Environmentally concerned authors have argued that anthropocentrism is ethically wrong and at the root of the ecological crises

The environmental crime stated forms, causation, and impact

Despite animal welfare being increasingly protected within domestic jurisdictions, animal rights are still hardly recognized. In May 2018, previous US president Donald Trump, when discussing illegal border crossings stated ‘We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in – and we’re stopping a lot of them – but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals.’ Such dehumanization (in this instance – of foreigners at the Californian-Mexican border) has historically been a standard discursive strategy used to facilitate violence committed by humans against other humans, by disregarding the rights of humans and degrading them to that of animals, it almost endorses the harm imputed on animals. Furthermore, animals have been protected by objective standards rather than through rights in a growing number of states around the world. The primacy of humanity, through relegating animal life to simply food or farming, etc. reiterates the scales of value (anthropocentrism, zoocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism)

Interactions established with other life on earth, whether it be with humans, animals, or nature, are complex and diverse and indicate different levels of moral concern. As regards who, or what is included in the bioethical community, four domains are classically considered – anthropocentrism, zoocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism; anthropocentrism considers that only human morals are of importance, zoocentrism includes other animals as having morals alongside humans, biocentrism offers moral standing to all living beings, and ecocentrism expands all moral concern to include all nature, whether it be living or non-living e.g. the ecosphere.

Animal abuse is said to result from ignorance about the abusive consequences of our behavior toward animals, the belief that abuse is justified, and the perception that abuse is personally beneficial. Social and behavioral scientists have paid little attention to the causes of animal abuse, despite the pervasive nature of such abuse and the tremendous suffering involved; Bryant and Snizek (1993) in fact, have gone as far as to state that ‘no area of human-animal behavior is more neglected than animal-related crime and deviance’. Beirne (1995, 1998) has also commented on this neglect and has called on criminologists to devote more attention to this issue. It’s important to analyze the root causes of animal abuse for two reasons; first, animals are worthy of moral consideration in their own right, moral philosophers, social theorists, and feminist theorists have made compelling arguments to this effect, although there is still some debate over the precise moral status of animals. Moreover, survey data suggests that most US citizens grant animals some moral consideration (Nibert, 1994)

It can be argued that masculinities play a significant influence in animal cruelty and abuse (Nurse, 2020), and it is well-known in an academic debate that criminality is mostly a male issue (Groombridge, 1998). Masculine-based animal harm is also connected to other forms of offending, such as in domestic contexts, where animal harm is a means for men to display and validate their masculinity in difficult social contexts. As a result, animal harm may be linked to male control, where a perceived loss of power or challenge to masculine authority may result in animal cruelty. As a result, animal cruelty is arguably used to reestablish masculinity, and animal victimization is part of a larger concept of victimization of the defenseless; however, relying on prison as a primary deterrent or consequence may be counterproductive, encouraging the very masculinities that underpin criminal behavior. The public policy response to ‘masculine crimes,’ defined as crimes of a distinctly masculine nature and with stereotypically masculine behaviors (Nurse 2013a), indicates acceptance of male criminals’ proclivity for violence and is comparable to that used for organized crime (Nurse 2012, 2013a). therefore-

Agricultural intensification is based on an agricultural modernization narrative that measures progress in terms of efficiency and productivity gains. Following WWII, dairy systems in the EU, North America, Australia, and New Zealand grew rapidly (Friedberg, 2009). Traditionally, livestock producers produced both meat and dairy, but specialized dairy farms have become more frequent. The dairy sector was further revolutionized by the shift from pasture-based to confinement feeding systems, which enabled constant output year-round to meet the expanding demand for milk. Individual cows, farms, and dairy production regions all benefited from these processes; for example, the US dairy herd produced three times as much milk in 2001 as it did in 1950, although having 30% fewer cows (Blayney, 2002). Larger herds, breeding technologies, indoor housing feeding, energy, and protein-dense commercial feeds, antibiotics and growth hormones, and specialized workers or machines are all part of farm specialization and mechanization strategies. Cows are artificially inseminated at a young age and milked for just a few years until their productivity begins to decrease due to the steep declines in animal health caused by continuous pregnancy and lactation (Oltenacu and Broom, 2010). Cows are frequently housed indoors, sometimes year-round, in highly intensive operations, with stall-feeding regimes of imported cereals and oilseed proteins to ensure consistent milk production. As a result, intensive dairy operations rely substantially on external inputs such as feed produced off-farm and carried long distances, water for animals, pasture irrigation, and infrastructure for milking and waste treatment.

Depending on farm management practices, the environmental impacts of dairy production can differ significantly (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). Intensive dairy systems’ increased dependence on inputs has the potential to worsen certain negative environmental effects, both directly and indirectly. Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), soil and water contamination, habitat loss and wildlife health, nutrient cycles (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus), and land use change are all common environmental impacts of dairy systems.

Tackling the problem

There is a need for more studies exploring the socioecological struggles that emerge amid the complexities of the agriculture industry, something that unfolds in different places over time. For instance, research might look into how transitions to intensive production and alternative production modes (such as organic) can renounce agro-industrial modes of production or, on the other hand, how they can recreate aspects of traditional production systems. Given the complicated and political nature of dairy system changes, studies should look at how systemic factors (such as farm size, supply chains, and policies) interact with social and environmental contexts (Wilson and Burton, 2015) to reduce the harm caused.

Skilled acrobats, the sound of laughter, the smell of popcorn, the sight of trained animals, and even the clowns, what’s not to enjoy?

The main focus of the night that’s purely there to perform for our entertainment is the ones who do not get any say in being there. These animals are forced to perform over and over again for the amusement of the passing crowd. Across the world, thousands of animals are being captured, taken from their natural habitat, bred in captivity, tortured, abused, kept in unsafe “homes” and suffer a lifetime of cruelty and abuse. And this is all hidden by lights, laughter, and music.

Animal performances are covered by the fun color costumes and tricks that leave the crowd amazed this disguises the fact that the animals are being held captive and being forced under threat to perform challenging, uncomfortable, and often painful acts.

Being a part of the circus often means you are moving from location to location which limits the necessities such as food and water the animals can consume. Moving locations means that the animals have to be kept somewhere during the trip, this results in them being forced to spend most of their time in cramped cages towed by trailers where there is only enough room to stand and move around, and when the animals are allowed out of their cages its only for a short time before the show starts, and even then elephants are kept in leg shackles allowing only movement of one step of each direction. The requirements set by animal welfare in Australia are being ignored. Even if lions are getting more than double the requirements set, that doesn’t get rid of their instinct to be in the wild, to run, hunt, and claim territory. According to the Victorian codes of practice for animal welfare, for any large cats such as lions, the ‘internal measurements of dens should be not less than 3 x 2.5 meters with a ceiling height of 2.1 meters’. National Geographic states that lions ‘wander a territory of 259 square kilometers’. So how could it possibly be right to keep a lion in a cage as small as 7.5m when their natural ability is to roam a territory of 259 Square kilometers?

Apes, baboons, chimpanzees, and other primates used in circuses are nothing more than being forced to live an unhappy life compared to their wild relatives. Live Science says the primates ‘tend to live in jungles, mountainous areas, and savannahs’, they also state that primates ‘are very social and live in small family groups of 2 to 6 .’ Peta.org states the ‘Primates are highly social, intelligent, and caring animals who suffer when deprived of companionship.’ Being held captive like every other animal at the circus in separated small cages with no trees or grass means that primates lack stimulation on a day-to-day basis and suffer

Physical punishment has always been the main training method for animals in the circus. Animals in the circus are yelled at, whipped, and hit to do tricks and perform, and it is not just one time, it’s over and over and over again.