Letter to the Editor: Not all activists are extremists and not all species need meat

Alycia Wong, Web Editor

In response to “Extremism Promotes Disobedience” from the February edition 

Dear Editor,

Though I completely agree with the fact that animals’ rights groups such as Direct Action Everywhere have advocated their beliefs in an extreme and problematic manner, I do not think it is fair to categorize all groups as such. Animal abuse in farms and factories is an undeniable issue that occurs. Animal advocates are simply fighting for what they believe in and shouldn’t be denied that right. The system is flawed, and the FDA and other organizations have clearly proven to be inadequate as egregious actions continue to be inflicted upon livestock. Thus, to simply “leave it to the professionals” would only lead to the continuation of such practices. Women’s rights advocates and Civil Rights activists saw how the “professionals” failed to address their needs and so they acted upon it. Though not exactly parallel, it is similar in that these parties did what didn’t seem to be “logical way of going about resolving the issue,” however, it is the only option.

I do not agree with vegans and vegetarians who try to force their beliefs onto others. However, these people are not representative of the groups they speak for and are only perceived to be that way because they are put at the forefront of the media. As a vegetarian myself, ethical reasons were the primary justification for my change in diet. This being said, I would never impose on someone else’s life choices; simultaneously, I would not want a meat eater to force me to change my habits. Therefore, just as how you believe that vegans and vegetarians don’t have the right to “condemn us for performing a natural act” I think it is also unfair to label these people as “pouty millennials getting sentimental over a cow’s feelings;” there should be a mutual respect for one another.

I would lastly like to address your claim that meat products are a “necessary aspect of our survival.” To defend the argument that eating those below humans in the food chain is a natural act would imply that humans are a part of the natural world, but that simply isn’t the case. While historically, our hunter and forager ancestors relied on meat for their survival, that natural environment highly contrasts to our artificial grocery stores and surplus of food. While yes, a shark eats a fish, they have no other option. They don’t have Target or Trader Joe’s. While yes, a lion eats a zebra, they were born with 10-centimeter canines. They were born with sharp claws. We might be equipped with the resources to consume meat, but that does not make it a necessity.



Alycia Wong junior