Making the World Better for Animals Makes It Better for Everyone

Animal advocacy doesn’t compete with human justice — it reinforces it.

Animal advocacy is often dismissed as disconnected from human concerns — or worse, as anti-human. But what if the opposite is true? What if expanding our compassion to include animals doesn’t diminish our humanity but deepens it? This essay explores the myth of limited compassion — and why caring about animals is inseparable from caring about people.

Photo by Tim Anderson of me and Sierra at Farm Sanctuary

There are many misconceptions about vegetarians, vegans, and animal advocates, and it’s a joy to debunk them whenever I can.

However, one that leaves me perplexed and somewhat sad is the assumption that because I care about animals, I don’t care about humans — as if compassion for one species means lack of compassion for another.

The implication is that animal advocacy is a trivial cause and that it exists in a vacuum, disconnected from other social issues.

Accusing animal advocates of being “anti-human” is also odd to me, because, though we’re reminded every day that humans steal, lie, cheat, kill, rape, and hurt one another, I’ve never heard any of these people labeled “anti-human.”

Wouldn’t the accusation better suit someone who actually acts against humans (Ironically, those who commit the worst crimes against humans are derisively called “animals.”)

Why Care about Animals When Humans Are Suffering?

And yet, this assumption still shows up — even from people who have dedicated their lives to creating a compassionate world. Recently, a subscriber asked me:

“How can we, as animal advocates, ask people to support animal rights when there are so many violations of human rights occurring in the world at this time?”

This question didn’t come from a defensive critic. It came from someone already living a compassionate life. And I understand why she’s asking. Maybe others have asked her. Maybe she’s bracing for the question. Maybe she’s wrestling with it herself.

Still, the question breaks my heart a little, because it buys into the notion that caring about non-human animals and caring about human animals are distinct from one another — that we have to be discerning about who receives or deserves our compassion.

It breaks my heart because it buys into the notion that having compassion for more than one issue at a time — or more than one species at a time — requires something more of us, something we don’t have, something that can be depleted if we gave too much away. As if we have only so much compassion.