If we all hope to make a significant impact, the animal advocacy movement should be promoted by and integrated into environmental and social justice causes.

Different advocacy movements are trying to create change in different ways: social justice advocates work to further human right and equality; environmental advocates seek to protect wildlife and ecosystems; and animal advocates want all species to be treated equally and no longer be used for human gain. Though these three broad movements share much in common, seeing them work together can be rare and surprising. Animal advocacy especially is an outlier, with both social justice and environmental advocates generally shying away from promoting animal causes.

Occasional Faunalytics blogger, Carrie P. Freeman has written an article stating that, if anything, animal rights advocacy is necessary “to save Earthlings – every last one of us.” The essay acts as a provocative and compelling suggestion that animal advocacy is marginalized by the other movements, when it should instead be promoted foremost as “the vital bridge connecting the struggle to protect the rights of human beings with the struggle to protect all living beings.” Carrie begins by outlining how, in general sense, it is not necessary to explain why human rights are important to other humans. Though some differences exist, many people recognize why we should care about other people. However, getting people to respect the environment or other species is more difficult, and often relies on anthropocentric values (humans need clear air and water, etc.) to move forward. Likewise, because an economic viewpoint dominates the planet, generally people have a hard time assessing the living world beyond dollars and cents. Intrinsic value is lost on many people.

The human-preserving aspects of environmentalism can make it seem obvious why social justice advocates should care about the environment. However, environmentalists often only wish to preserve certain species of animals, even though they “do not provide a sound justification” for doing so. In other words, environmentalists tend not to want to improve the lives of farmed or lab animals, or animals used for entertainment, simply because those species do not fit into a simple ecological picture. This is despite the fact that many such species are actually taken from the wild, or that the farming of animals for human consumption is an environmental catastrophe of immense magnitude. With this in mind, the author argues that environmentalists should consider animal rights as a “matter of moral consistency.” Similarly, she states that social justice advocates should be able to show empathy and try to acknowledge our kinship with other animals, “rather than cope with the shame, albeit perhaps subconscious shame, that comes with our (ab)use and exploitation of fellow animals and nature.”

The author notes that animal advocacy “leans” on the power of environmental ethics and human rights, and states that all three movements could actually benefit from one another if they work together. Animal advocates must rely “on environmental advocates to protect habitat and to extend moral standing to the more-than-human world, and on human rights inasmuch as animal activists extend certain extant, well-established human rights to nonhuman animals.” She says that, because the three social movements target similar types of opponents, namely corporations “and their government enablers,” there is a great deal of tactical and strategic common ground that could be struck.

“The future of all Earthlings depends on humanity’s willingness and ability to choose responsible coexistence—sharing our planet and respecting the diversity of life,” says the author. For animal advocates, this means reaching out to environmental and social justice advocates, and building bridges through help and mutual respect. If animal advocates can show that they genuinely care about coalition building, perhaps the other movements will follow suit.