Skip to content

From Shepherd to Advocate: Why I Focus on Animal Suffering

May 28, 2019

Source Mikko Jarvenpaa / Sentient Media. Author (on the left) with a friend.


Source Sentient Media
By Mikko Jarvenpaa, Founder

In a world rife with human suffering and problems, why should one focus on animal rights and animal suffering? My answer is at once moral, emotional, and rational.

In retrospect my personal path to animal rights has been both obvious and meandering. It consists of both emotionally charged experiences and cool-headed rational thought.

But it has been far from obvious to many of my friends why I would make the change from tech entrepreneurship into something that has a more positive impact on the world, and end up dedicating my efforts to animal rights. For their and my benefit, I wanted to chart my course briefly, lest my friends explain this all away with my never-too-latent rebellious tendencies, or by just having stayed in Northern California for too long.

Friends with sheep

I was born and grew up in Eastern Finland. As long as I can remember, my father had the hobby of keeping sheep. I call it a hobby because it wasn’t for economic gain but for reasons of self-reliance with meat – and wool, which my mother used as materials for her art. For me, the sheep were at least as good as pets, nearly friends.

Sheep are actually pretty amazing. The common misconception is that sheep are stupid, easily freaked out, and just, in general, pretty sheepish animals. But that’s before you get to know them. Yes, they certainly have strong herd instincts and can all bolt pretty easily if even one sheep feels threatened. But once you get to know them and they accept you into their herd, you learn their individual characteristics. Some are more playful than others. Some are entirely food-motivated while some will just want to get scratches. Some are devious and try to come up with different ways of escaping. They often collaborate, for example, by leaning against bushes to push them lower for others to eat.

I didn’t have too many human friends growing up. There were no kids within walking distance until I was seven or so. So the sheep were doubly important to me. We’d sometimes keep them over the winter, and my brother and I would often be responsible for bringing them fresh water and feed in their winter shelter. I took part in all parts of their lives, except the very last.

In the fall, the men would come. I don’t remember what they looked like, but I remember what I felt like. My dad told me not to come over to the sheep enclosure that day. I stayed indoors and played the radio loud to drown any sounds. Whether there were sounds from the slaughter, I don’t know.

After the men left, I would sometimes sneak into the small garage in the enclosure where the slaughter had taken place. The floor was always stained with blood and I seem to remember seeing the implements of violence, though I don’t remember exactly what they were.

What I do remember, though, is the tremendous sense of loss. Loss of lives that didn’t want to die. Loss of beings that were close to me and that I was close to. And most harrowingly, the palpably present sense of loss by the animals still left behind to kept over the winter. They had lost their young, their parents, their friends, the only other beings that could give them a sense of safety. The sheep I remember well, huddled together at a safe distance, all tense, staring at me, the person who used to be there for them.

Betraying the trust of the innocent is the worst feeling I know.

Thinking rationally about animal suffering

Since the age of 15, I was vegetarian, on and off, for a long time. Even in my off-times, I never felt right about eating mammals: cows, pigs, and sheep always felt too close to human, too close to eat. For a long time, I tried to consider birds and fish more biological robots than sentient beings (and I was badly wrong in this). It took nearly 20 years from first going vegetarian for me to piece the puzzle together and take action that was consistent with my ethics.

The key to taking that action is suffering – realizing that it is suffering that I most oppose, not the loss of life, or the act of killing, or even the system of speciesist exploitation.

I had to go deep for this realization. I went back to school at the ripe age of 30 and completed my Master’s in Philosophy of Social Sciences at the London School of Economics and Political Science. I focused on the philosophy of biological and cognitive sciences with an interest in ethics and the evolution of morality.

To summarize in three very broad strokes: first, understanding the suffering of others makes evolutionary sense for any animals that live in groups and have the capacity to do so (assume this holds at least for all vertebrates: mammals, birds, and fish, to mention the most exploited classes of the animal kingdom). The subjective experience of suffering is more obvious, but that also makes a lot of evolutionary sense: pain is a harm-reduction mechanism. Practically all animals with a spine feel and “understand” each others’ pain (quotes only to emphasize that their understanding may be very different from our verbal understanding). Considering a non-human animal’s mental suffering is just as valid as considering the mental suffering of a human animal.

Second, reduction and elimination of involuntary suffering is perhaps the most universally appealing goal across most ethical frameworks. Some moral codes allow for causing harm or having a neutral stance on it, but in my view none of them are intuitively or rationally appealing. Everybody wants good things, and involuntary suffering is not a good thing.

And third, to have an impact one needs to focus on things that are most neglected. This idea stems from utilitarianism, though I’m not a total utilitarian in my views. This is also what lead me to put theory into practice.

Based on these premises, though considered in much more detail, I realized there is an urgent need to focus on the suffering of animals. We keep producing more animals into lives systematically filled with physical and mental suffering. In factory farming for meat, eggs, and dairy, we do this to billions of beings and we cause them to suffer. We do this needlessly, and we do it willfully. Importantly, we do it as a part of a self-enforcing system of economic and cultural structures.

Ok, you may say, animals suffer, but why would someone concerned with suffering focus on animals in a world with so much human suffering to go around? Surely human suffering ought to be addressed before taking up the fight against animal suffering?

Personally, I subscribe to the view that human life and human experience is indeed more valuable and more desirable than a non-human animal experience of life – but not incomparably so, and certainly not indefinitely so. This doesn’t mean there has to be a certain number of animals that are morally equivalent to a human. I believe comparisons can be made even though they be theoretical and uncomfortable, while at the same time I do not desire there to be a moral calculus that would tell us how many B-lives are worth one A-life.

For example, if I was forced to cause a proportionally similar amount of suffering to a chicken or to a pig, say, suffering equivalent to that of a lost limb, I would choose to cause the suffering to the chicken because I assume that action to cause less suffering both in quantity and – perhaps more controversially – in quality. This disagreeable example (and there are much worse thought experiments used by experimental philosophers) may seem intuitively sensible, but in addition to pure intuition we may also attempt to approximate the probability of the volume of suffering experienced by things like the complexity of the animal’s neural and cognitive systems. Yet even this is done not ever knowing the subjective experience of suffering of another being. And, yes, I may well be wrong with this example and future evidence shows that avian suffering is actually more intense and severe than the suffering of large mammals, in which case I ought to adjust my response to this thought experiment accordingly.

Extending comparisons from animal suffering to human suffering seems like a very bad idea. Almost taboo. Surely some things are black and white – animals are animals and humans are humans? The same person who finds that intuition to be common sense may also be a dog owner who loves their canine companion dearly. That person may well value the life of their pet much higher than that of a human stranger on the other side of the world. In doing so, they are actively making cross-species ethical comparisons that they intuitively agree with. But we are experts at living with moral inconsistency. We are forced to be such experts because human intelligence is limited.

Without going into detail of how comparisons should or even could be made, let’s just assume that sentient suffering is somehow comparable, contrastable, even if human suffering should be orders of magnitude more important than the suffering of the next most intelligent exploited animal. Which is the pig, rather uncontroversially. Yes: bacon, ham, pork chops – all made of intelligent, socially complex, family-centered animals who suffer insanely in the process. Hundreds of millions of such sentient beings every year.

The sinews of suffering

Before taking a closer look at animals, consider just a sampling of the dizzying extent of human suffering in the world today.

There are 70 million forcibly displaced people in the world according to the UNHCR due to wars, persecution, and other upheavals. In 2015, 736 million people lived in extreme poverty (under $1.90 per day), and 3.4 billion people still struggle to meet basic needs, living on less than $3.20 per day in lower-middle-income countries or under $5.50 in upper-middle-income countries according to the World Bank. In the US, more than 10 million women and men are subjects of domestic violence every year. The WHO estimates that over 200 million women have been subjected to female genital mutilation. And I could continue this list for hours.

It’s not that I don’t care about human suffering. The degrees and types of cruelty, neglect, inequality, terror, and other sources of human suffering are mind-boggling and too frequently horrifying.

So the question remains, now stronger than ever – why animal rights? My answer is the proportional neglectedness of farmed animals: no matter how you look at things, animal suffering is incredibly neglected.

Let’s take a couple of proxies to quantify neglectedness. In 2017, Americans gave $410 billion dollars to charitable causes. For 2015, Animal Charity Evaluators estimated the top 10 farmed animal outreach organizations to have budgets of $20 million. Let’s assume they count for 50% of the total budgets, and call it $40 million in total to get a conservative overestimate. Note that this would also include governmental grants which are not included in the $410 billion giving figure. Yet to remain conservative, other causes (which are primarily human causes) get approximately 10,250 times the donations that farmed animals do in the US.

There are over 9 billion farmed land animals killed every year in the US (and probably tens of billion of fish). Without exaggeration, 99% of these farmed land animals are born into the factory farming system where suffering is the norm, not the exception, and where cruelty is sanctioned.

Therefore, if we accept that animals can suffer (they can), that we are causing their suffering (we are), and that we should focus our efforts on targets that need the most help (and as I’ve argued, yes, we should), then focusing on animal rights is rational. Even if you wanted to claim that human experience of suffering is 100,000 times more valuable than an animal experience of suffering for purposes of allocating resources, you’d still be left with the equivalent of 90,000 violent human deaths that capped lives of near-constant suffering. As violent and unequal as the US is, there are less than 20,000 violent human deaths per year with billions of dollars in private and public funding aimed at addressing those deaths, as opposed to the $40 million for the suffering of farmed animals.

And very importantly, there are many powerful people and well-funded organizations seeking to eradicate diseases, to alleviate poverty, and to put an end to cruel traditions where humans suffer. Animals have very few such friends, especially in proportion to the problem. While human suffering is very real and horrible, human suffering is not nearly as neglected as animal suffering.

For another angle of how neglected animal suffering is, consider how often you see animal rights discussed in the media. We should be surprised that the constant suffering of billions of our fellow Earth-dwellers in the hands of our fellow humans is not perpetually in the news. But still today the opposite holds: people are surprised and even dismayed that they are asked to question their beliefs and behavior when it comes to their lunch. The rare occasions that animal suffering is discussed in media, it is mostly on topics of outright animal abuse and neglect (usually of dogs, cats, or horses), or the use of animals in entertainment or laboratory testing. As horrible as those cases are, they pale in volume to the suffering on factory farms: in the US, there are 500 animals used and killed on factory farms for every one animal used in a laboratory.

No matter how you dice things, it is especially farmed animals who are neglected and whose suffering challenges us with its moral urgency.

The power in animals

My reasons for focusing on animal rights are both emotional and rational. There is much more to my personal experience and rationale than what I presented here. And I didn’t even get to mention the climate impact of animal agriculture (at least as big as that of all global transport), human health (from carcinogenic meat to health risks of dairy), or existential threats of animal agriculture (a promising breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant pathogens).

But there is one more thing to mention when focusing on animal rights: tractability.

I believe we can make a major positive difference for farmed animals within my lifetime. We may not eliminate animal farming within decades, but it will become undesirable, unprofitable, and widely morally questionable. Within one generation, eating animals and animal products like dairy and eggs will be viewed like smoking is generally viewed in the US today – pretty disgusting but somewhat tolerable. Within two generations, the same practices will be viewed like public executions are viewed today – morally reprehensible, barbaric, still done in some places in the world, but something that ought to be confined into the annals of history.

The issue is tractable because people care. Animals are powerful allies. They are relatable, cute, friendly, and wholesome. They are our link to nature and natural things. They give us support and happiness while our social ties erode and become fewer.

The vast majority of meat eaters care about animals. Many are even a little annoyed by suggestions that they are doing something wrong, because they know they well might be. I know I was.

And back in Finland, on some years there are still sheep at the house I grew up in. If I go, I still meet them and watch them play, graze, and socialize. But I don’t stay for the fall.

Please reach out to me on Twitter with any comments or questions.

Order a FREE vegan kit:

Take PETA’s Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide along with you next time you head to the store! The handy guide will help you find humane products at a glance. Order a FREE copy HERE

Searching for Cruelty-Free Cosmetics, Personal-Care Products, Vegan Products, or more?
Click HERE to search.

Want to do more than go vegan? Help others to do so! Click below for nominal, or no, fees to vegan literature that you can use to convince others that veganism is the only compassionate route to being an animal friend:


Vegan Outreach:

Have questions? Click HERE

Our animal brothers are not menu choices
We the compassionate will be their voices

Karen Lyons Kalmenson


7 Comments leave one →
  1. karenlyonskalmenson permalink
    May 28, 2019 8:17 am

    Our animal brothers are not menu choices
    We the compassionate will be their voices

    Liked by 2 people

    • May 28, 2019 4:47 pm

      I love how you manage to convey in such a succinct manner that which takes me an essay. 🙂 Thank you, hon, it’s perfect, as always. ❤


  2. May 28, 2019 9:03 am

    A touching story, the memories of a child and his friends slaughtered sheep to satisfy “the needs of meat” …
    I believe that that sense of powerlessness, in observing the surviving sheep of the carnage, that profound horror that you cannot even erase with your eyes closed, is what unites every human being who sees in the animal a similar one.
    The Mikko child will have felt himself dying inside, not having been able to prevent this crime … and I think that this horrible memory is engraved in his flesh with fire, indelible, burning.
    But is it necessary to go through such traumatizing experiences to change? Because anthropocentrism and speciesism have reached today’s levels, where, through the fault of the human that kills his fellow human beings, billions of creatures (what we call animals) must also perish.
    The choices can be made for different reasons: emotional, rational, ethical, ecological… the basis of every reasoning should be the desire to reach a world of peace, a place where every creature can live as a perfect element of the trophic chain: one of the most important properties of any ecosystem!!!
    I’ve been reading a book by J. Lovelock the Revenge of Gaia lately. Although I do not approve of the idea of a solution on nuclear energy, what he describes is imposing in its simplicity and clarity. Everything is connected to another, every system works because it is “balanced”, every creature is necessary… but I think that in the Darwinian theory it would have been better if other creatures had evolved instead of the Pythagoreans.
    Now we must continue to fight, we must distort the nefarious habits … unfortunately there will be many battles and there will still be carnage. I will not see it with these eyes, but it will be one of my next reincarnations.
    So nice that there are “enlightened” people like Mikko fighting for the voiceless.
    Hug and peace :-)claudine

    Liked by 1 person

    • May 28, 2019 4:45 pm

      Your words are always so interesting and insightful, beautiful Claudine. Bringing peace and balance is both a noble effort and a necessary cause. Thank you, dear. ❤

      Liked by 1 person

  3. May 28, 2019 11:12 am

    Very interesting article Stacey, particularly about his childhood experience. Quite similar to Donald Watson’s, the founder of the UK Vegan Society, who is credited with inventing the word “vegan”. I don’t necessarily view things in the same way as Mikko though. Comparisons between species, and decisions about whose suffering is greatest are not for me. I understand that he is explaining that he focuses on non-human animals rather than humans, because the scale of suffering is so much greater. But I don’t think we can be judges of who suffers most. Suffering, cruelty, exploitation and injustice matter immensely, and need to be challenged, wherever they are found. Thank you for a thought-provoking post.

    Liked by 1 person

    • May 28, 2019 4:38 pm

      I think often, as he mentions briefly, people tend to behave in; make decisions based upon; or view situations in; either a rational or emotional manner (with variations, of course). I think his appeals to a more pragmatic viewpoint, to those more interested in a tangible: a fact, a number, a direction, a plan, etc. Personally, I actually do care as much about the ending of life and global speciesism as I do about the suffering, and I frankly don’t care about any personal benefit I derive from animals to, so to speak, “rationalize” caring about them. (We all benefit in a myriad of ways, of course, whether we’re vegan or not, but I personally don’t factor that into my empathy equation, if that makes sense.)

      And I’m visual, so unless I have a picture, I can absolutely miss meaning, and I could be totally wrong about my very basic conclusion referenced in those two points, but I do agree with the premise (implied) that there are those who demand a reason to “choose” one or the other – not that you have to defend your choices – not on this, you don’t – and why can’t you help both? – only that there are those who require it (and quite frankly, those are the people who most likely do nothing at all – for anyone), and, most importantly, that the suffering (and exploitation and death) of animals is massive and basically relentless.

      There’s this saying, not sure from whom or where, but it’s something like, “A single death is a tragedy, and a million is a statistic.” This says, yeah, how about billions, and besides it being a stat, it’s WRONG and to ignore it because of OTHER suffering is also wrong: why does the massive suffering of one species automatically negate the massive suffering of another, and not just negate it, but also sanction it? I think rather than accepting a stat as a mere number, he’s using the stat, and the widespread suffering and growth it appropriately reflects, as the basis of an imperative directive.

      I do agree with you: I think suffering is suffering, regardless of the sufferer, and should always be challenged. But I also believe that there is suffering with no limits or restrictions, that is sanctioned and applauded, that we can change in many ways with little effort – and that is what we need to do. We also need to make the effort to do so in more difficult ways, regardless of species, because that is what we do, because it’s right, but the unchallenged suffering is often the most accepted.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

World Animals Voice

Animal news from around the world.

Yolanda and her creative scream

Aspergers syndrome, bipolarity, photography, art, poetry.

Once Upon An Activist

Every so often, you will get to tell someone your stories, and it will become a part of their awakening

Barbara Crane Navarro

Rainforest Art Project - Pas de Cartier !


creative design center



M4nic Digression

Bipolar, bisexual and vegan. Blogging for myself. Currently stable...ish. A blog that critics are describing as "all over the place" and "lousy with errors".

Aloe Veritas

Arts and Letters of the Earth

Cosmic Skeptic

Question Everything

Striking at the Roots

Animal activism around the world



The Bruges Vegan

more than waffles and chocolate

DirtNKids Blog

Soil, Kids, Vegan -- Connected Through Nature

Amici del Lupo - Svizzera italiana

per sensibilizzare e farlo conoscere...

Animalista Untamed

The only good cage is an empty cage

Jet Eliot

Travel and Wildlife Adventures

Organic Opinion

Finding it, aye there's the rub~

Flawless Pandemonium

Question everything~

%d bloggers like this: