Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Blind Eye: Selective Empathy in an Age of Violence

Opinion

The Blind Eye: Selective Empathy in an Age of Violence
Person holds sign saying stop animal exploitation
Photo by Tico on Unsplash

We do not want bloodshed. Not in Gaza. Not in Ukraine. Not in another American school or home. The thought of hostages, children trapped under rubble, and screams amid gunfire pains us deeply. We say violence is wrong, period, and we demand that the government do something about it—that is, until it’s wrapped in plastic at a grocery store.

Every day, in places most of us will never see, workers kill animals. These victims haven’t done anything wrong; they are simply born in bodies that humans decide do not matter. We know what happens to them behind slaughterhouse doors—even if we try not to think about it.


Our government is more than complicit in this violence—it is an active participant, spending billions of dollars on animal agriculture, with some farms receiving tens of millions each year. Farmers who grow fruits, vegetables, and grains receive far less. That is why PETA is calling on lawmakers to end these wasteful subsidies and redirect the money to vegan foods, helping grocers stock healthy animal-free foods and ensuring everyone has access to compassionate, sustainable options.

The U.S. government also enables abuse in these industries to continue: PETA has documented that federal inspectors routinely record animals suffering in clearly illegal ways at slaughterhouses—animals punched, shot multiple times, left conscious as they are hoisted and hacked apart—yet the agency has never once referred these cases for federal prosecution. With lax inspections, weak enforcement, and confusing signals about whether state and local anti-cruelty laws can be applied, offenders go unpunished, cruelty continues to go unchecked, and offenders are emboldened because there are no consequences for their actions. This lack of enforcement sends a dangerous message: that cruelty to animals used for food is protected by the very system meant to stop it.

A healthy society depends on its members to question violence in all its forms, whether inflicted by nations or corporations, with missiles or in slaughterhouses. So let’s think about it: You would not eat a dog, so why eat a chicken? Dogs and chickens have the same capacity to feel pain, but prejudice based on species allows us to consider one animal a companion and another as food.

A paper published in the Social Psychological Bulletin revealed the mental gymnastics that some meat-eaters engage in to cope with their uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. The review examined self-soothing strategies people use to respond to triggers—things that recall the contradiction of eating meat while supposedly caring about animals. Processed “products” help numb that truth—when flesh is ground, shaped, and renamed, compassion and disgust are easier to suppress. Language itself softens the blow: “Steak” sounds more palatable than “dead sentient being.”

To ease our conscience, companies slap “humane” and “animal welfare certified” labels on animal-derived foods—but PETA’s investigations have revealed that these labels are meaningless and misleading. At Sweet Stem Farm, formerly a Whole Foods supplier, PETA found pigs crammed into sheds, denied outdoor access, suffering from untreated injuries like bloody rectal prolapses and enduring painful deaths, all while being marketed as “happy meat.” And at Plainville Farms, a PETA investigator witnessed workers violently abusing turkeys—they kicked, stomped, choked, and even mocked them with sexual gestures—while sick and injured birds were left to suffer and die.

Some of us may also deny that animals feel pain or comprehend what’s happening to them. But they do. Take fish, for example: A new study in Scientific Reports reveals that fish experience severe pain—and can suffer for at least 10 agonizing minutes after being pulled from the water.

This compartmentalization—the capacity to care selectively—is not just a personal moral contradiction. It’s a collective psychological barrier that enables societies to justify all kinds of cruelty: war, exploitation, and violence. When we decide that some lives matter less, empathy diminishes. And when empathy diminishes, democracy itself becomes fragile.

As the late, great Helen Thomas said: “A healthy democracy requires an informed people, facts make a country safe, and facts protect people.” The fact is that across the U.S., 99% of animals used for food spend their entire lives on farms—never enjoying sunlight, fresh air or freedom until they’re packed onto trucks bound for slaughter.

Vegan living is a vote for a world in which compassion is not rationed by species or convenience. Just imagine schools teaching that kindness should extend to every living being while feeding students a healthy plant-powered lunch. Imagine governments investing in food systems that don’t involve raising animals in squalor just to kill them while destroying the planet. If we can imagine it, we can do it. Everything starts with an idea.

The path to peace will never be paved with selective empathy. All it will take is for people like you and me to shift to vegan foods. It’s easy. Simple actions like choosing a lentil stew over processed flesh or ordering oat milk in your latte—these can shape markets and public norms. And it starts with us.

Rebecca Libauskas is a writer for the PETA Foundation, www.PETA.org.


Read More

 Cracked Dry Earth - stock photo A pair of worn brown boots stand on cracked, dry earth. Sparse green plants struggle to grow amidst the barren landscape, creating a stark contrast.

After the AfD’s historic wins in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, an analyst links climate migration to democratic decline and a possible fix.

Climate, Migration and the Far Right: Democracies Need a Short-Term Plan

On September 6, the far-right German party Alternative for Germany (AfD) made a historic breakthrough. 100 years after Hitler’s official reorganization of the Nazi Party, a group that has openly strategized and worked with neo-Nazis won a plurality of the vote in the state of Saxony-Anhalt and is on the precipice of forming a government there. 14 days later, they won a plurality again in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. This is the AfD's strongest electoral result yet, and the closest a far-right party has come to a majority in postwar Germany.

In a country with numerous safeguards against right-wing co-option – from a 5% minimum threshold to enter the Bundestag to bans for undemocratic parties – this democratic victory of a far-right movement shook the country to its core. Whether AfD is able to make up the handful of seats it needs in coalition agreements to form governments in both states isn’t the point; AfD’s stock is on the rise, and at this rate, they will likely continue to win at both the state and federal level. Even if Chancellor Merz’s coalition government can start delivering for the increasingly underemployed and isolated German people, by all signs, far-right support will only continue to increase.

Keep ReadingShow less
Humans May Start Wildfires. Climate Change Makes Them Catastrophic.
A forest fire glowing with bright orange flames and smoke at night
Photo by Egor Vikhrev on Unsplash

Humans May Start Wildfires. Climate Change Makes Them Catastrophic.

The summer of 2026 once again saw wildfire smoke from the West Coast and Midwest blanketing East Coast skies. Smoke-filled summer skies now seem to be the norm across America, and wildfire season isn’t even close to over.

The public response is also becoming normal. When investigators determine that a person started a wildfire, online chatter usually centers on the idea that humans are the cause and that climate change could not have played a role. That argument confuses the ignition source with the complex conditions that contribute to wildfire. A spark may explain where a wildfire began. It cannot, on its own, explain why flames spread so far and devastate entire communities.

Keep ReadingShow less
Aerial view of a large Google Data Center

AI data centers consume huge amounts of water and power. Tucson’s Project Blue shows why communities need clearer, verifiable transparency from tech companies.

Getty images

The True Cost of AI: Are Tech Companies Reducing the Damage?

Ever since the AI boom of 2022 with the release of OpenAI’s large language model “ChatGPT” to the public, we have seen the exponential rise of AI being seemingly forced into our daily lives. It makes sense after all; who doesn’t like an uncanny Will Smith eating spaghetti, making funny faces?

Fast forward 4 years, and that same technology is being used to create almost undetectable videos of posthumous celebrities doing things they never did. High school teachers and college professors must worry daily about the effects AI is having on both the work turned in and the brains of those submitting it.

Keep ReadingShow less
data server

Abstract image of a futuristic server with light blue and green LED lights.

Getty Images

The One Thing Both Sides of the Data Center Fight Already Agree On

In Festus, Missouri, a town that gave Donald Trump 67 percent of its vote, residents have filed to recall the mayor and three council members over a $6 billion data center. In New York, a Democratic governor has signed the first statewide moratorium on new ones. Across seven states, at least 33 recall campaigns are targeting as many as 58 local officials for the same reason, and the reason is not a party. It is a building.

That makes data centers the rarest thing in American politics right now: an issue where the folding chairs in a red county and a blue one are filled with people saying the same words. They are not saying "no technology." They are saying the box across the road raises their power bill, drains their water, takes the farm, and was negotiated behind a nondisclosure agreement before anyone in town knew its name. In Luther, Oklahoma, the moratorium passed only after word leaked that the mayor had been in closed talks with a developer for months. The anger is not about servers. It is about being handed a decision that was already made.

Keep ReadingShow less