Humans have long considered themselves the pinnacle of existence, wielding power over animals and ecosystems with little thought for the consequences. But this dominance comes at a price — a price paid not by humans, but by the innocent beings who share this planet. Every second humanity survives is another second of immeasurable suffering for animals.
Some might argue that humans are capable of change, pointing to organizations and movements that fight against animal cruelty or work to preserve the environment. These efforts are lauded as evidence of progress, a reason to justify humanity’s continued existence. But let’s be honest: they are nothing more than distractions, small bandages over gaping wounds. These actions do not erase the billions of lives bred into misery, slaughtered for profit, or tortured for convenience. They merely serve to ease human guilt, allowing people to convince themselves that their “efforts” are enough to offset the horrors they perpetuate.
This is not progress. This is delusion.
Take a moment to reflect on the life of an animal bred for slaughter or fur. Their existence is one of confinement, pain, and fear — every moment dictated by the greed of humans. And for what? A fur coat? Animals shouldn’t be mass produced with the intent of their murder. If you want to eat meat, you shouldn’t have the convenience of walking into a supermarket and selecting which piece of minced animal life you desire. Animals should be left to nature, and if a human wants to eat meat, they should have to kill the animal themselves, in the animal’s natural environment rather than a manufactured one designed for their slaughter. The suffering of these beings is so profound and so preventable that it begs the question: what right do humans have to continue existing if their existence guarantees such atrocities?
One might argue that there are good humans in the world, people who truly care about animals and work to reduce suffering. That may be true. But the reality is that these people are the minority, their voices drowned out by the overwhelming tide of human selfishness and apathy. Even the kindest human births another human, and that child inevitably becomes part of the system — a system that, by its very design, prioritizes human life at the expense of others.
This leads to a harsh conclusion: no human baby deserves to be born when every new life prolongs the suffering of animals. Some may call this idea radical, even misanthropic, but it is grounded in undeniable logic. Humanity’s existence is a perpetual cycle of exploitation, and as long as humans exist, justice for animals will remain a distant fantasy.
But perhaps there is a solution — Universal Equilibrium. A natural correction, a rebalancing of the scales. Whether through ecological collapse, a global pandemic, or some other force, nature has a way of addressing imbalances. Humans have pushed the planet to its limits, and it is only a matter of time before those limits push back. Some might view this as tragic, but I see it as justice.
Of course, the question arises: would the absence of humanity truly end suffering? Nature itself is not free from pain. Predators hunt prey, diseases spread, and the struggle for survival is inherent to life. Yet the suffering caused by humanity is unique in its scale and intention. No other species enslaves billions of others for profit or amusement. Humanity’s extinction may not eliminate all suffering, but it would bring an end to the deliberate, calculated cruelty that defines human impact on the world.
In the end, the argument is not about whether humans can change but whether they will. And history has shown that humanity’s capacity for cruelty far outweighs its desire for compassion. Until humanity is gone, animals will never know true freedom, and the planet will never find true balance.
So, I pose this question: if humanity’s existence guarantees the suffering of billions, what moral justification is there for its survival?
