We tell people how they need to improve. But, apart from abstaining from using animals for our benefit, we rarely look at ourselves and how we can improve.

Would it be okay to perform experiments on animals if they couldn’t feel pain? Could we keep animals in factory farms if they didn’t experience suffering? How does the language we use influence the direction of animal rights?

Modern technology advances are not creating non-animal methods of research to solve the replication crisis in science caused primarily as a result of animal use. They are doing so because modern technology allows it.

Animal research is solidly on the side of art if we are to consider that the results are almost always open to interpretation. It isn’t possible to know the pain level of an animal, it is isn’t possible to know if a toxicity test will replicate in humans, it isn’t even possible to to determine if two humans will react in the same way to the same medication or substance.

The Australian government is “engaged in a campaign to support industry and bombard us with messages to get us to consume more meat, eggs and dairy”. The primary industry body, Meat and Livestock Australia, says their interest is “ultimately delivering improved profitability to those farmers”.

Researchers may exclaim that a requirement to report on the number of animals used in their medical research is impractical as it lacks the context of their research project or objective, but it stands that their own reporting already lacks this context when it is communicated to the public.

If we do not have the conversations, if we do not allow people the time to change their behaviors, we are going to create a tougher wall to pull down, and many billions more animals will die in the meantime as we all grow further apart.

While the public are generally quite supportive of harsher penalties for animal abusers and often agree that factory farming is abhorrent, the presence of an activist in the media is often as a result of a social disruption and is featured to maintain the narrative of a public wide distain for these protestors.

Milk prices have essentially remained unchanged to the consumer over the past fifty years, however the cost continues to increase by unnecessarily taking the lives of our families, friends, and animals. A cost which dairy consumers need to take significantly more responsibility for.

Does the ACT legal definition of sentience now include protections for the Bogong Moth, as it is essential to the physical welfare of the Mountain Pygmy-Possum? If the Bogong Moth is essential to the Mountain Pygmy-Possum, then is the physical welfare of the Bogong Moth protected under ACT law?

It remains that it is the government and pharmaceutical companies who dictate the direction of research and it is here that our criticism should be directed. It’s just not in our human nature to remain focused on changing industries as it is far more socially acceptable to gossip about billionaires.

How might the reintroduction of the thylacine be received when they act inconsistently with our expectations? Might farmers again resort to hunting them to protect their animals? How might the re-established food chain realign to accommodate an apex predator? How might the thylacine adapt to new strains of viruses and modern natural environments?

They often agree that anytime we draw a line, we draw a line which can also be applied to adults, those who require assistance to maintain a heartbeat or those who have poor brain function. However, also with regularity, they fall short in their argument in that it is only ever applied to humans.

If an investment is made in alternatives to animals in research and it does not reduce the failure rate or financial cost, animal advocates will be left with a lot of explaining to do. We must campaign to remove animals, but not against failure or the cost of our health.

What humans do we talk about when we talk about ‘human-relevant’? And does something which has been tested and observed in humans mean that it is applicable to all humans?

AI-based models are more cost-effective and efficient than animal models, reducing the time and effort required to conduct experiments. This can accelerate the discovery of new treatments and therapies while also reducing the number of animals used in testing.

Animal and environmental advocates, among other social movements, will often encourage a boycott of any product they believe has harmed animals or the environment. So how do we know the extent of what has been a result of animal experimentation so that we can avoid its use?

Many animal advocates will tell you that there is a hard line between those who care about animals and those who don’t. But this misnomer is similar to the ‘hard line’ we draw between an animal and a plant, or between those who are and aren’t sentient.