A week ago, I found myself at an animal rights conference in Warsaw, Poland. A friend mentioned it to me, and my curiosity led me to sponsor my own attendance. 

*The event spanned four days and featured an incredible variety of participants. There were scientists, campaigners, writers, activists, psychologists focused on activism, project managers, leadership coaches, those seeking grants and those providing them, coaches for grant applications, people working in livestock welfare, job seekers and recruiters - just to name a few.* 

I was genuinely surprised by the vast network that supports animal rights and welfare.

*Interestingly enough, I also discovered something new: there's actually a difference between animal rights and animal welfare. This distinction was a topic of debate among attendees.* 

The discussion revolved around questions such as: Should we continue farming and caging animals? 

The keynote speaker argued that if all farmed animals were released, eventually only wild animals would remain. 

I couldn't help but wonder: What's wrong with that? Why is it bad for animals to live freely as they do in the wild? 

Then, a research topic caught my attention; it seemed almost unreal. The question was whether it's better to kill a fish using electric stunning or let it suffocate. 

This apparently ties into animal welfare debates - how can pain and suffering be minimized? 

And I found myself unable to... I couldn't help but wonder: Why kill the fish to begin with? This question seemed central in many discussions I engaged in. 

*People often labeled 'complete abolition' as either too idealistic or unfeasible. The idea was that a radical demand might deter individuals from joining the cause, so perhaps taking gradual steps is more practical*. 

Less suffering instead of more. Improved conditions rather than deteriorating ones. A reduction in cruelty rather than an increase. 

A compromise, you could say. 

**Beneath all these discussions, I noticed an underlying assumption that humans hold authority over other life forms.** 

Conversations revolved around the degree of suffering we permit. Sure thing, let's give this a fresh spin.

It's acceptable, sure. We often find ourselves in heated discussions about how animals should live, travel, and eventually meet their end. 

These conversations revolve around making their use less harsh. But where does this power come from to make such decisions? Why do we believe it's up to us? 

***I get it; step-by-step change is a strong argument. Change isn't easy, systems are well-rooted, and maybe inching forward is the only way to bring everyone along for the ride***. 

Yet one question kept bugging me: Why can't we just leave others alone? What drives us to constantly search for methods to make exploitation more bearable or gentle? Why question the exploitation itself? 

Instead of just trying to make an already cruel system a bit less harsh, why not tackle the core issue?

Maybe that's the tough question I came back with from Warsaw. Not “How do we improve this cruelty?” but rather “Why do we allow any cruelty in the first place?” 

And as all these thoughts filled my mind, Acharya Ji often came to mind. 

On one hand, I saw this vast network devoted to animal rights and welfare -campaigns, research, policies, grants, activism - all aiming to lessen suffering. On the other hand, I couldn’t stop thinking about a man who managed to... 

When someone uses 'animal rights' a lot, they're touching on a deeper issue - how we view other living beings. 

Many animals find safety not through talking about their rights, but by changing how people relate to life itself. This difference stuck with me. 

If not for you, I might have gotten caught up in the hype of supporting a 'good cause.'

*Now, my vision is clearer.* 

I am truly thankful to Acharya Prashant. 🙏🏻

\~Posted by Gita Student 

🍃 My Reflection & What I Got to Know from Animal Rights Conference 🐾