The Universal Language of Exploitation

A new study surveyed nearly 21,000 people across 23 countries and found exactly what many in the vegan movement have known for years: most people know animals feel, think, and want to live—yet they keep using them anyway. The justification changes depending on geography, gender, politics, or religion, but the outcome is always the same: exploitation disguised as normality.

And the main takeaway? People aren’t lacking information—they’re manufacturing excuses.

Speciesism: The Global Default

The study examined three things: how people justify using animals, what they believe about animals’ inner lives, and whether they think it’s OK to treat other animals as objects. Unsurprisingly, speciesism—the belief that humans are superior and more deserving than other species—was the loudest signal across borders.

Eastern countries scored higher in speciesist attitudes. But before anyone gets too smug, Western countries only appear less speciesist because the lies are dressed up better. “Humane” slaughter. “Ethical” farming. “Happy” eggs. At least when a person in the East says animals are here for humans, they’re being honest. In the West, people say the same thing, but with PR padding.

Whether you kill a cow while saying a prayer or gas her to death with a welfare label slapped on the package, you’re still killing someone who wanted to live. Cultural variation doesn’t change that truth.

The 4 Ns: Four Excuses That Rot Fast in the Sunlight

Researchers also tested how widely accepted the “4 Ns” are: the idea that eating animals is natural, normal, necessary, and nice. These aren’t reasons; they’re rationalisations. No one says rape is okay because it’s been “natural” or “normal” in human history—yet somehow this lazy thinking gets dragged out to excuse stabbing pigs.

The study found that belief in the 4 Ns varies across countries but is still common. This isn’t shocking when industries spend billions reinforcing these lies. “Nice” gets pumped into every advert. “Necessary” gets pushed by lobbyists. “Natural” gets paraded on packaging. And “Normal”? That one’s baked into childhood before kids can even ask who they’re eating.

Sentience: The Uncomfortable Truth Everyone Already Knows

One of the more revealing parts of the study was that most people do believe that animals feel pain and emotions. They know chickens aren’t machines. They know pigs care for their young. They know cows grieve.

So why do they keep funding the system that kills them?

Because belief in animal sentience is often correlated with stronger justification for using animals. That’s right. The more people admit animals feel, the more they scramble to defend their continued use. This is cognitive dissonance at work. “I believe animals suffer—but I also enjoy cheese.” Something has to give. Instead of ditching the cheese, many just double down on denial.

Liberal and Still Complicit

People with more liberal political views were more likely to reject speciesist thinking. Women were too. But don’t confuse correlation with commitment. You can vote progressive, talk about rights and equality, and still pay for baby cows to be killed for your cappuccino. 

Being slightly less speciesist isn’t a badge of honour. Morality isn’t a spectrum—it’s a principle.

India’s Outlier Status: Religion Isn’t the Answer Either

India stood out as a country where people were less able to justify eating animals. This is often linked to the cultural prevalence of vegetarianism among some religious groups. But let’s not romanticise this too quickly. Milk is sacred in many Indian traditions, and the dairy industry in India is just as brutal as anywhere else—maybe worse.

Worshipping cows while torturing them isn’t respect. It’s a contradiction. If religion teaches compassion, it shouldn’t be used to prop up systems that violate it.

What Animal Advocates Can Learn (and What We Should Ignore)

The authors suggest that animal advocacy should “speak to the audience’s 4 Ns.” Translation: instead of challenging the excuses, we’re supposed to work within them. If people say meat is necessary, show them plants have protein. If they say it’s nice, make a tastier burger.

This may sound strategic, but it’s not revolutionary—it’s marketing. And marketing doesn’t dismantle injustice; it just sells around it.

Yes, context matters. Yes, culture shapes habits. But no amount of tailoring should dilute the core message: using others as resources is wrong, full stop. It’s not about finding the “right way” to ask oppressors to please stop. It’s about rejecting the idea that oppression is negotiable in the first place.

Speciesism Isn’t a Personal Preference. It’s a Global Power Structure.

What this study ultimately reveals is that animal use isn’t some quirky habit—it's a global system of domination, reinforced by culture, politics, advertising, and convenience. People don’t eat animals because they have to. They do it because they can—because the victims don’t have a voice.

But being born into a system doesn’t mean you have to obey it. Every major injustice has been normalised until it wasn’t. Slavery. Child labour. Women as property. They were all cultural. They were all defended with “natural,” “necessary,” and “normal.” Sound familiar?

Final Thoughts: This Isn’t About Who’s Better. It’s About What’s Right.

Too often, studies like this end with calls to “respect cultural differences” or “engage people where they are.” Fine. Respect people, yes. But don’t respect systems that treat someone else’s life like a commodity.

Not all traditions deserve to be protected. Not all norms deserve to survive. If a culture, community, or individual belief demands another being’s life, then that belief isn’t sacred—it’s supremacist.

It doesn’t matter if you were raised eating animals, taught that they don’t matter, or surrounded by people doing the same. You still have a choice. Every day. Every meal. Every product.

And no culture, no tradition, no excuse, changes the fact that someone else always pays the price. This is a rejection of speciesism in all its forms—not a judgment of any race, religion, or culture, but of the global mindset that treats others as property.