I’ve been swimming around in the sustainability world for a long time now, and every now and then I hear someone say “We don't need to save the planet. It will be just fine. It’s humanity that we need to to save”. I think this is a fair statement on some level, in that most environmental action is in fact focused on trying to create an environment in which humans can thrive long into the future. The truth is that when we talk about people and planet, most of us are really talking about people and our planet.
Recently there seems to have been a big increase in the number of people talking about our relationship with nature in a different way, recognising it as something in its own right that we humans belong to, rather than as something that belongs to us. This shift seems to be mirrored in the design world where there is growing adoption of concepts such as non-human personas, in which we put ourselves in the shoes of non-human entities such as the oceans, the atmosphere, forests and key species such as bees.
I think this is all a positive trend and reflects a shift towards more holistic and compassionate ways of thinking, but in most cases our apparent care for these non-human “entities” still seems to be centered on the fact that we think they are essential for human well being. It's quite rare to hear a conversation about genuinely valuing the Earth as a living organism that has inherent value in the universe, regardless of humanity's relationship with it.
Even if we did extend our thinking this far though, there would still be a glaring omission. There is something that is almost never talked about in mainstream sustainability, business and design communities - the well-being of non-human beings. We seem to create a broad brush distinction between human beings and nature, as if all other life forms are just cogs in the big machine that we call Earth.
You might call me out at this point and highlight that there is a significant effort within the environmental community focused on wildlife conservation and protecting rare and endangered species. Surely this represents a significant focus on the well-being of other beings. Doesn’t it?
For many individuals working in this field, I have no doubt that this is true, but as a wider culture I’m not sure it is. Whether it's protection of the Black Rhino or the Red Squirrel, these efforts are nearly always focused on either preserving these creatures for the important roles they play in the wider ecosystems that us humans depend on, or on preserving their majestic beauty for our own wonder and enjoyment. In some ways that isn’t a problem, because anything that motivates us to protect nature is a good thing, but this human-centric mindset limits our ability to see the bigger picture. There is something about our modern culture that struggles to recognise non-human beings as more than just categories of species, and to see them instead as beings in their own right - as individuals who matter.
The only real exception to this is pets, which so many people have genuine love and compassion for as individuals. In fact, we love our pets so much that we have a roughly $250 billion a year global industry to look after the needs of our beloved creatures. But then again, are we spending $250 billion to look after their needs or ours?
I know it’s taboo to say it, but there is a glaring contradiction in the way our culture cares about non-human beings. We apparently have so much love for the individual beings that we call our pets and a horrific lack of compassion for most other non-humans. The global meat industry alone is worth over a trillion dollars. Every day, humans kill about 900,000 cows. According to Our World in Data, if “they all walked right behind each other, this line of cows would stretch for 1800 kilometers”. Add to that daily count, 202 million chickens, 1.7 million sheep, 3.8 million pigs, 1.4 million goats, 11.8 million ducks and several hundred million fish, not to mention countless other species. Yes, that’s daily.
At this point I’m sure that some of you will be getting uncomfortable, but I urge you to stick with me for a minute. I promise I’m going somewhere.
As I mentioned in my article about how nature might run a business, I think it’s important to acknowledge that life isn’t all rainbows and cuddles. There is a degree of cruelty inherent in nature and as humans, we are not separate from that. There are times when humans have genuine need to exploit or kill other beings in order to meet our own needs and while sad, it is also unavoidable.
The question is, what percentage of the beings killed or exploited by humans every year are actually necessary to meet our genuine needs; and what percentage to meet our desire for a stylish new pair of shoes, the taste of a juicy burger or even to feed our pets? It is an uncomfortable question for the simple reason that deep down we know it has an uncomfortable answer.
So if you're getting a bit squeamish at this point, let me relieve you of your suffering. Because that's the point isn't it? Buddhist philosophy says that life here on Earth is full of suffering, in its myriad of forms, and that our primary objective should be to free ourselves and others from it, human or otherwise. And while nature is cruel and some suffering is inevitable, one of the great things that makes us human is our ability to think more deeply and our free will to act from a place of love, compassion, empathy and reason, not just the blind pursuit of satisfying our physical instincts. We are able to make conscious choices that can radically shift the amount of collective suffering.
Shouldn't that be what sustainability is really all about? To create a world with less suffering for all?
How often do we consider the suffering and well-being of non-human beings in a business context? When a water company dumps sewage in a river, did anyone stop and imagine how it would feel for the creatures that call that river home? When a clothing company decides to put an unnecessary leather patch on the back of a pair of jeans, did anyone ask whose skin they're using and why? When a baker decides to put milk powder in their loaves, did they ask whose child that milk was meant for and whether softening bread is really a better use for it? These are simple questions to ask and while the answers might not always be simple or comfortable, the act of asking them would lead us to see new possibilities.
One place in the business world where these conversations have been happening for many years is in the cosmetics industry, where animal testing has become seen as bad practice, largely thanks to animal activists and pioneering companies like The Body Shop taking a stand to avoid unnecessary suffering. It’s a clear example of how we can reduce suffering when we take the time to think about non-human beings, but somehow this never seems to have been embraced as a core principle in the wider environmental and sustainability movement. That seems strange to me.
It’s always seemed as though environmental issues are considered separate from concerns for the well being of other creatures but these things are inextricably linked. Animal agriculture and fisheries are the source of approximately 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, are one of the biggest sources of land use and deforestation, as well as one of the primary drivers of aquatic biodiversity loss. If we joined up our thinking and considered non-human beings as an integral part of how we think about the environment, then I believe we could drive faster progress in solving environmental issues while also reducing the amount of suffering caused by human activities.
The good news is that even though this type of thinking isn't normal, there are a growing number of businesses that are doing it, from a plethora of plant based restaurants and food companies popping up worldwide, to fashion brands like Stella McCartney and Ninety Percent avoiding animal derived materials in their products. There might never be a perfect solution, but there are companies out there exploring possibilities and there is a growing appetite of customers wanting them to do so.
Even in companies where it might not seem relevant, there are things that we can do. In my agency Wholegrain Digital, we don't have any products or services that directly involve non-human beings, but as a team of humans we do all eat food. In 2020, I held a team referendum on whether we should limit the consumption of animal foods when paid for with company money. For example when we organise events, go out for team meals or travel for business.
The reason for doing it as a referendum was simply to recognise that food choices are highly personal and I didn't want to impose anything on the team without their support. I gave the options of sticking with the default of no restrictions, or limiting options to vegetarian or vegan only. I honestly expected the majority to vote for no restrictions, as this would have reflected the day to day eating habits of most people in the team. However, I was pleasantly surprised that over 60% of the team voted for a vegetarian policy with an exception for anyone with special dietary requirements. In the years since then, I have found that support for this policy actually seems to have increased despite the fact that many newer team members weren’t involved in voting for it.
The beauty of a policy like this is that suffering for many non-human beings has since been avoided and as our team, clients and friends of the company get exposed to more plant based foods, it also has a ripple effect in their personal lives, reducing suffering a little further. I wonder what the world would be like if every business included considerations for the well being of non-humans in their sustainability policies. The impact could be quite profound.
When we think about environmental issues like climate change, it can often feel like we need to save the entire planet. It can feel like an all or nothing mission that might never be achieved within our own lifetimes. However, when we take the time to consider our impact on the lives of the many other beings that are alive on Earth today, we find that even small efforts can make a meaningful difference, while also helping to solve those larger issues at the same time.
On that note, if this article inspires even one person to do something that reduces suffering for even a single being, human or otherwise, then it will have been worth the time to write it. And if it resonated with you and you believe that each small act really does make a difference, then please do share it far and wide.
I'm glad you raised those important questions and added that extra depth to the non-human personas. We've grown so used to many things in our daily lives without thinking about how they are made and where they come from - leather patches on jeans, wallets, gloves, belts, shoes, etc. I remember hearing somewhere that we would all be vegan if the walls of slaughterhouses were made out of glass.
On a positive note, I am happy to see year after year more cruelty-free alternatives, not just in fashion, and cosmetics but also as meat alternatives. The scales are turning.
Another great essay, Tom. I discovered you a short while ago with your article on spirituality, which was exceptional. This one also fits the bill. Lots of great insights and nuanced perspectives. And the ethics are impeccable, which I guess means they align with my own. :) I look forward to reading more of your work. Thanks!