A common mix-up
Many people think: "Animal advocates and environmentalists want the same thing; they just disagree about how to get there." The author shows that's false: they want different things.
Extermination programs
All over the world, there are environmental programs that kill wild animals in the name of biodiversity and ecological balance. Their goal isn't a better world for animals. It's keeping certain species and certain ecosystems the way they're considered "supposed" to be.
"Individuals" and "wholes"
People often say: "Animal advocacy thinks about individuals; environmentalism thinks about the whole." Many people get this wrong, as if environmentalism thought about the majority and animal advocacy refused to sacrifice one to save many.
The author clears it up:
- Thinking about individuals means: an action is right or wrong depending on how it affects the beings who feel. (Animal advocates disagree among themselves about cases where you can only save many by sacrificing a few.)
- Thinking about wholes means: an action is right or wrong depending on how it affects things like species and ecosystems, not the sum or the majority of individuals.
Proof of this: for many environmentalists, as long as the species doesn't go extinct, there's no problem killing as many animals as you want.
In short
- Animal advocacy and environmentalism have different goals.
- "Thinking about the whole" doesn't mean "thinking about the majority."
- For environmentalism, what counts is the species or the ecosystem, not the animals' good.