My bitch snuggles up to me. She is trembling all over and panting because she is scared of the approaching thunderstorm. I stroke her and give her reassurance. She can only really relax when the thunderstorm is over. No, it would be out there in the wilderness, not capable of survival, and yet I am convinced that only freedom is species-appropriate. “If you take that seriously,” I am told, “then we would have to put all animals, domestic animals, farm animals, and working animals in front of the door and we shouldn’t be allowed to look after them anymore. Pretty perverse attitude. So, you’d let them go rock hard?“

It would be perverse to put my bitch on the street, my bitch and millions of other animals that humans have made alien for their needs, i.e. unable to survive in their original environment. These animals do not correspond to their wild species, but are domesticated, degenerate, civilization-damaged pets. That is why it is too brief (and is deliberately misunderstood) to see in this slogan the desire for immediate release. We consciously made these animals dependent on us, i.e. ultimately incapable of living. Dogs in particular are a great example of this. Not only would they not find enough food in nature, like their wild ancestors, the wolves, or their close relatives, the foxes, we also made them sick in various ways. We breed them so big that their skeleton cannot support it or so long that the proportions do not fit. Others, on the other hand, were so messed up that they could not give birth without human help or could not breathe easily. This also includes those breeds where people thought it was cool that they no longer have hair or that their coat gets such a „beautiful“ color through genetic mutation that the associated blindness is of no consequence. For whom is this kind of cranky exaggeration of a questionable aesthetic important? For the animal or for the person? No, these animals would perish very quickly in freedom, in a self-determined, autonomous life. But only because the species is not appropriate to the species.

The picture is even worse with so-called farm animals. Dairy cows, for example, are bred in such a way that they give up to ten times the normal amount of milk. I hope everyone is familiar with these terrible pictures of emaciated cows, whose udders are so big that they can hardly move. If they were to be released now, they would suffer enormously from this overproduction. Therefore, this breeding is dependent on humans. Nevertheless, the little calf is not allowed to drink with mom because we don’t want to give a drop. But that’s just by the way. It is the same with chickens that are bred to put meat on as quickly as possible. If they were not slaughtered after 42 days (that is their lifetime), they would continue to put on meat and at some point, collapse under their own weight. Salvation would be death for them. It is the same with pigs, which should put on as much weight as possible as quickly as possible. They too would not be viable for long. Something similar can also be found in sheep, whose fur does not stop growing. If they weren’t sheared once a year, they too would perish miserably. This does not mean, however, that freedom is not the goal worth striving for, but only that man is prepotent enough to degenerate these helpless living beings in such a way that they cannot lead a species-appropriate life.

The list goes on and on for a long time. Nevertheless, one can say as a conclusion, “Only freedom is species-appropriate” and if freedom is not possible, then the animal is not species-appropriate, but has been spoiled by humans. That is why it is a moral obligation to take care of these animals, to bear the responsibility that we have taken on for the impossibility of a free life. But why then keep the slogan when it is not achievable?

Go to part 2 here.