Sir: Commenting on the animal rights movement, Peter Levi (Books,
21 January) says: 'With moral evolution and acquisition of wealth, with all its choices, things can get exaggerated.' But why has he missed the real link? The point is surely that our acquisition of wealth — in this case the richness of our Western diet — has been
established to the great cost of farm animals, whose lot has declined at about the same proportion that ours has improved. It strikes me as in the natural balance of things that there should be a reaction against this, hence the animal rights movement. You do not have to agree with the manifesto of the movement to be in sympathy with the principle. Mr Levi may be correct in saying that animals do not have rights, but wouldn't he agree that we have responsibilities to them which we are fast shedding in our obsession for 'cheapness' and 'productivity'?
Simon Piggot 2-533 Mitake, Ome, Tokyo
Previous page
