O.k. I agree, but don’t you think it will take a lot of time and the chances are very small to succeed, so I better act within the conventional movement?

We don’t think that the chances are small. We don’t know what the chances are and neither do you.
What we do know and demonstrated all over the website is that if you continue to work within the conventional movement the chances to liberate the animals won’t be little, they will be zero.

Peter Singer, one of the most significant philosophers and spokespersons of the movement, said the agreement by McDonald's to give battery hens a few more inches of cage space was the most significant development for farm animals since he wrote Animal Liberation.
More than thirty years of animal rights activism and the best we can show is a larger battery cage?!

It’s very difficult to make someone acknowledge that the movement he is part of, all the effort that was put in, the life work of so many, is failing.
It’s painful to admit that activists rely on small achievements missing the bigger picture and fail to recognize the mechanism. Many honestly believe the state of animals improved since the movement was formed.
It is frightening to think how much animal suffering increased since Animal Liberation was first published. The global pigs meat production increased almost 3 times, egg production 4 times and chickens meat production by more than 5 times.
Since 1975 new industries have been formed joining the ones that already exist and constantly expand. New species became subjected to commercial exploitation, that intensify further all the time. The prices got cheaper and cheaper and a greater verity of available products was introduced to the market consecutively in the 44 years of the "animal liberation age".

The movement has failed. It was long ago - the time to try different approaches.
So the answer is, no, you better not. You better hurry up, gather a few activists that are committed enough and focus on a way to stop all the suffering, because society is irrevocably speciesist and immoral. Gains made are easily reversed.
Animal abuse will go on until mankind becomes extinct or the planet is destroyed.
It’s time we open our eyes and admit that we shall never overcome.
History has shown that working within the cruel system and winning small battles for the animals, proved to be irrelevant. The carnage against animals continues.
The opposition is stronger, better financed, and more numerous than animal defenders.

The establishment is not going to allow any real change within it, unless the political structure, big businesses and finally the mainstream consumer society feels that a change is really necessary. Yet, it is the same political structure, big businesses and consumer society that are directly responsible for most of the suffering on the planet for the sake of profit. Since these entities have repeatedly demonstrated their prioritizing of monetary gain ahead of suffering, it is absolute foolishness to keep asking them nicely for reform or revolution. Humans will not wake up some day compassionate, caring, and moral and you shouldn’t expect or ask them to.

The conventional way is speciesist. It refers to humans’ power and control as obvious.
Activists in the conventional movement are not trying to "dethrone" humans, they are trying to convince "the masters" to change their treatment toward their slaves. That is unacceptable. Human superiority should not be considered inevitable. And unfortunately it is. The fact that the animal rights activists’ natural tendency and the first and last plan of action, is to explain to humans that their daily torturing of the weaker for their own minor benefits, habits and pleasures is wrong, is pure speciesism. Giving humans the right to decide is speciesism. The natural tendency should be to stop the suffering in the most deep rooted and fastest way.
And the most efficient way is definitely not by asking the oppressors to be more considerate.

As hard as it is for us to say and for you to accept, most of the activists are speciesists who devote their time to constituting the torture, and all of the activists practically accept humans’ dominance.
Animal rights organizations "decided" that no matter what humans do, they must stay. They are trying to educate them and change their violent habits, meaning automatically accepting the general existence of suffering and compromising on the efforts to reduce it.

Even the most radical activists compromise on what they think they can achieve for the animals and until now even this is not achievable. What are the chances of outlawing birth of more than one child for each couple when bullfights are still legal and are very popular? What are chances of outlawing private cars when it is legal to shove a pipe into bears gal bladder and extract their bile? Can we seriously discuss airplanes as birds’ rights violations, while it is totally legal to enter a forest shoot monkeys and kidnap their young, fly them thousands of miles in a tiny box to screw their skulls and run test for a few years on their brains all in the name of science?

Even when most of the public is against an exploitive industry, like in the case of rodeos, fur, ivory, female genital mutilation, child soldiers and etc, it doesn’t matter. It is not enough. The world is changing because of economic and political reasons. Not because of moral reasons. Cockfights, Bullfights and Dogfights still exist, in spite of the campaigns that the animal rights organizations run against them for decades, and in spite that most humans are against them. And if this is not enough for a little and publicly unaccepted industries such as cockfighting and dogfighting, when will the broiler industry, which is more than 50 billion suffering animals per year industry, ever stop? When? If you keep fighting in conventional methods - Never!

It’s the market forces and technology that dictate the reality for each and every creature in this world and especially for the hundreds of billions of animals raised in intensive factory farms. Everything is economic. Things change when there is an interest, money and a market for the change. Three elements that the animal rights movement doesn’t hold. Humans don’t have an interest to go vegan, the animal rights movement doesn’t have money and the market wants steaks not tofu.
Every year tens of millions more are born into a life of suffering, and the numbers will keep rising until you realize that conventional activism can only gently nibble the edges of the mainstream but it can’t stop the main stream of suffering.

Activists and organizations are trying to change the world and are failing all the time. Everyday is worse than the day before. Our website is full of facts and figures about suffering in the world, but the worst one is that every second 5 more babies are born. The world is so horrible and the social change organizations are so noneffective that the most dominant suffering factor is by far the birth rate.

The more humans the more suffering.
For a wider spectrum about the world’s animal consumption course please read the answer to the question Why not work hard to make a vegan world?

But humans of course, are not the only suffering creators on this planet. All the animals have been, all are and all will act in order to promote their own genes. That is what life is all about and consequently that is what all the living creatures are designed for. All the organisms are selfish. Can your conventional way affect creatures’ genes? Can it change the basic elements of life? Will creatures stop fighting each other over territories, dominancy, mating "rights" and etc? Will all the world creatures stop hurting each other while they are converting each other to an energy source? Or is it o.k. because it is a "natural suffering"? Are you planning to convince all the creatures in the world to become vegans? Please watch Non Speciesist Suffering in the articles section before you answer

How does your conventional way deals with the “natural suffering” that comes with age? What about diseases? Will you convince all the germs to stop harming too? What about accidents? And we don’t mean just car accidents, any unplanned bad thing that happens to everyone all the time, can you stop that too?

As long as there are sentient creatures on this planet, there will be violence, exploitation and suffering. Someone will always suffer for someone else. Choosing life is choosing suffering. The math is very simple. Most of the creatures suffer most of the time. A non-speciesist perspective, a point of view that doesn’t favor the interests of one species over another, necessarily leads to the conclusion that this world has to be stopped. Suffering is an inherent part of life. There is no social idea that can change that.

What more do you need to know? The current world situation is not enough? All the ignorant, apathetic and stupid responses you get all the time from people you talk to about animal rights are not enough? History is not enough?
Learn from history, it always repeats itself. Only the setting and the performers change. The change should be internal and there is no chance for that to happen.
You can’t change the genetic imperative of all the living creatures. The only way is to get rid of the mechanisms which are responsible for all the suffering - the survival and reproduction mechanisms.

Hearing an argument like "it will take a lot of time and the chances are very small to succeed", from an animal rights activist when facing the only idea that can end all the suffering in the world and which is the only irreversible one, is really a huge disappointment.
Where is your active spirit? You are not waiting for humans to become vegans by themselves, right? You do something about it, right? Well it’s about time you deal with the real problem.
If you think that the world would be a better place without sentient creatures, do something about it!