Blog

Eliminate all plant foods and carbohydrates, eat only flesh, lactations and ovulations, and you'll enter the miracle land of ketogenesis. They say it reduces inflammation, clears your skin, and boosts your overall health. Spoiler alert: this is complete nonsense. The Reality CheckThere’s zero credible evidence that an all-animal diet is beneficial long-term. In fact, science consistently tells us the opposite: eating primarily or exclusively animal-based products significantly increases your risk of serious diseases.&nbsp;Heart disease, various cancers, type 2 didiabetes, scurvy, and even gout - these aren't vague possibilities; they're documented, predictable outcomes of diets high in meat. If carnivore-diet fans were rigorously tracked over decades, the data would undoubtedly confirm these increased health risks compared to those enjoying plant-rich diets.&nbsp; Why Do Some People Temporarily Feel Better?It's not surprising that some people initially claim improvement when adopting a carnivore or low-carb diet. After all, cutting out certain foods can temporarily mask food allergies, sensitivities, or intolerances. This initial relief is common in any elimination diet - it simply means you've removed a problematic ingredient. You could have chosen to live off potatoes. But let's not confuse temporary relief with genuine long-term health.Elimination diets are never intended to be permanent solutions. They’re short-term diagnostic tools, designed specifically to identify troublesome foods, followed by a controlled reintroduction of a wide variety of healthy, plant-based items to ensure balanced nutrition. Permanently restricting yourself to animal parts is neither advisable nor healthy - it's an unnecessary gamble with your well-being. The Long-Term DamageAdvocates of the carnivore diet conveniently overlook overwhelming medical evidence highlighting the harms of flesh-heavy eating patterns. Saturated fats, cholesterol, absence of dietary fibre, and exposure to carcinogenic compounds like heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, formed during cooking flesh, are clear indicators of elevated risk factors for chronic diseases.Let's not sugar-coat it (particularly as sugar is carb-based and thus a carnivore’s declared enemy): repeatedly consuming exclusively animal-derived foods subjects your body to serious health threats that no anecdotal short-term relief could justify. The Ethical Elephant in the RoomBeyond health, let's not forget the moral absurdity of promoting diets exclusively centred on animal exploitation. To reject plant foods and rely solely on animals means endorsing continuous exploitation, commodification, and disregard for animals’ intrinsic rights and freedoms. Choosing a diet that inherently views animals as commodities cannot align with a rational or compassionate worldview. ConclusionFeeling good for a few weeks doesn't justify long-term damage to your body or the systematic exploitation of sentient animals. Ignore the carnivore diet fad; choose balanced, plant-rich nutrition that truly sustains your health and aligns with ethical principles of justice and respect for animals.&nbsp;It's straightforward: your health deserves better, and so do the animals.

The Carnivore Diet: Just A Dangerous Fad

Recent studies have hammered home a simple truth: eating a healthy, plant-based diet can drastically reduce your risk of dying from conditions like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and even dangerous blood clots.Cardiometabolic diseases are killing more people worldwide than any other cause. But what's driving this global health crisis isn't complicated. It's down to poor diets loaded with animal proteins, refined fats, and sugary junk. A major international <a data-mce-href="https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250318/Healthy-plant-based-diets-linked-to-longer-life-for-people-with-cardiometabolic-disorders.aspx" href="https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250318/Healthy-plant-based-diets-linked-to-longer-life-for-people-with-cardiometabolic-disorders.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> covering almost 78,000 participants in the UK, US, and China revealed that people who favour fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes significantly slash their mortality risk - up to 24% lower compared to those eating typical animal-heavy diets. On the flip side, a diet packed with processed foods and animal products spiked the risk of early death by up to 36%.Lead researcher Zhangling Chen from Central South University in China put it plainly: "More healthy plant-based foods, fewer unhealthy ones, and less animal-based foods are all critical."But this isn't just about general longevity. Another comprehensive <a data-mce-href="https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101318" href="https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101318" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> published in JACC: Advances highlighted how plant-rich diets specifically cut the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) - life-threatening blood clots in the legs and lungs. Following over 183,000 people for 13 years, researchers found those who closely adhered to eating whole grains, nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes were 14% less likely to develop these dangerous clots, even when genetically predisposed.Think your genes set your health destiny? Think again. Participants at high genetic risk for blood clots still significantly benefited from sticking to a plant-focused diet, highlighting just how powerful plants are, regardless of your genetic background.And that's not all. Multiple studies confirm that ditching animal proteins in favour of plants can radically boost your cardiometabolic health. Swapping meat for plant proteins leads to a notable drop in harmful LDL cholesterol, blood pressure, inflammation, and even body weight.<a data-mce-href="https://vegconomist.com/health/harvard-study-links-more-plant-proteins-and-less-meat-lower-heart-disease-risk/" href="https://vegconomist.com/health/harvard-study-links-more-plant-proteins-and-less-meat-lower-heart-disease-risk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Harvard researchers</a> reinforced this: people consuming the most plant protein had a 19% lower risk of cardiovascular diseases and a 27% lower risk of coronary heart disease. Similarly, <a data-mce-href="https://vegconomist.com/health/vegan-diets-improve-cardiovascular-health/" href="https://vegconomist.com/health/vegan-diets-improve-cardiovascular-health/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Stanford Medicine</a> researchers found that adopting a plantbased diet could significantly improve cardiovascular markers like cholesterol and fasting insulin levels - in as little as two months."This suggests anyone who chooses a vegan diet can substantially improve their long-term health rapidly," said Stanford's Christopher Gardner.The evidence couldn't be clearer: plant-based diets are transforming lives. Eating plants isn't just about ethics or the planet - it's about survival. So, next time someone questions why you're reaching for chickpeas instead of chicken, let them know it's because you're choosing life over death.

Eat Like Your Life Depends on It

The grass-fed beef myth needs to be buried for good.For years, the idea has been marketed like gospel: that grass-fed beef is the sustainable, ethical alternative to factory farming. Slower, smaller, and supposedly greener. But now, the data is in, and it’s damning.A <a data-mce-href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2404329122#sec-2" href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2404329122#sec-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> in PNAS has confirmed what many of us have been saying all along - grass-fed beef is not the climate saviour it’s made out to be. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, it is still up to 40 times more carbon-intensive than plant-based options. Even more than industrial beef. That’s not a win for sustainability. That’s a marketing lie.Yes, some people claim that grazing cows can help sequester carbon in the soil. The study found no conclusive evidence for this. And even if it were true, the carbon offset would be so insignificant it wouldn’t come close to balancing the emissions cows pump into the atmosphere with every belch.Worse still, because grass-fed cows take longer to fatten and yield less flesh per animal, more land is needed to churn out the same amount of flesh. That land often comes at the cost of wild habitats. Forests destroyed. Carbon sinks gone. All to prop up the illusion that your fancy burger isn’t torching the planet.It doesn’t stop there. A separate paper has revealed that the beef industry has known about its environmental impact since at least <a data-mce-href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adb6c0" href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adb6c0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1989</a>. Instead of taking responsibility, they <a data-mce-href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2025.2460603#abstract" href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2025.2460603#abstract" target="_blank" rel="noopener">copied the tobacco playbook</a> - deny, distract, and downplay. Internal documents from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) show they not only acknowledged the threat of global warming but actively strategised how to manipulate the public narrative.They targeted influencers, lobbied politicians, tracked environmentalists, and even pressured media outlets not to run stories about the climate impact of cow flesh. They funded academics to churn out friendly research and insisted that what individuals eat doesn’t matter. All while knowing full well that reducing beef consumption could make a massive dent in emissions.This campaign of confusion has worked. <a data-mce-href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/08/28/climate-action-poll/" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/08/28/climate-action-poll/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Polling in 2023</a> showed that 74% of US adults believe eating less meat won’t impact the climate. That’s not public apathy. That’s the result of decades of PR spin and disinformation.And yet, independent research bodies like the World Resources Institute, and <a data-mce-href="https://eatforum.org/content/uploads/2019/07/EAT-Lancet_Commission_Summary_Report.pdf" href="https://eatforum.org/content/uploads/2019/07/EAT-Lancet_Commission_Summary_Report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EAT-Lancet</a> are unanimous: shifting away from animal agriculture - especially cows - is essential for tackling climate breakdown.The numbers speak for themselves. A <a data-mce-href="https://vegconomist.com/sustainability-environment/bcg-report-50-market-share-alternative-proteins-half-gas-fuled-cars/" href="https://vegconomist.com/sustainability-environment/bcg-report-50-market-share-alternative-proteins-half-gas-fuled-cars/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> by Boston Consulting Group found that if alternative proteins captured just 50% of the global market, agricultural emissions could be slashed by a third by 2050. That’s five gigatons of CO2 every year - like taking half of all fossil-fuelled cars off the road.And there’s more. Replacing just half of all animal products with plant-based alternatives could spare 653 million hectares of agricultural land. That’s land that could be rewilded, reforested, and restored. Biodiversity loss would slow. Entire ecosystems could begin to recover.But you won’t hear that from the beef lobby. They’ve spent decades making sure you don’t.The NCBA clings to a figure claiming beef contributes just <a data-mce-href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/us-ghg-inventory-2024-main-text_04-18-2024.pdf" href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/us-ghg-inventory-2024-main-text_04-18-2024.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">2.3% of US emissions</a>. Technically true, but totally misleading. Per capita, that’s the same as all emissions from a typical person in sub-Saharan Africa. And Americans eat three times more beef than the global average.Grass-fed or not, cow flesh is a climate disaster. The emissions, the deforestation, the water use, the methane - it’s a perfect storm. And we’ve known it for decades.So the next time someone tells you their grass-fed steak is good for the planet, remind them: cow flesh isn’t just unsustainable. It’s been a lie, bought and sold by those with a vested interest in keeping you in the dark.This isn’t just about carbon footprints. It’s about exposing an industry that has done everything in its power to hide the truth. We owe it to ourselves - and everyone else still living on this planet - to stop buying it.

Grass-Fed Lies

Around 125 million animals are used in laboratories every year. Despite mounting evidence that they experience complex emotions, feel fear, form bonds, and suffer, they remain the go-to “subjects” for experiments that range from the absurd to the appalling.Why? Because we’ve been conditioned to believe that if it’s done in the name of science, it must be justified. A recent <a data-mce-href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672211039413" href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672211039413" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a>, published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, shows just how deeply that belief runs — and how it overrides our most basic moral instincts. Scientific Authority: A Dangerous Licence to HarmResearchers asked participants to administer increasingly toxic doses to what they thought was a live goldfish (it wasn’t — it was a robot). Just under a quarter refused outright. But over half took the task to its fatal conclusion — essentially, killing the fish. And disturbingly, those who injected more poison were also more likely to rate the experiment positively.A second experiment made things worse. Participants were asked to write either positively or critically about science beforehand. Those primed to feel good about science were significantly more likely to harm the fish — even as they witnessed signs of distress. In other words, those who felt the strongest identification with science were the most likely to ignore the suffering of another being.The same trend held true in the wider population. Across a sample of 31,000 Europeans, people with “pro-scientific” attitudes consistently supported animal experimentation, regardless of their political views, gender, age, or religion. And among medical students, those in fields like medicine and pharmacy were far more likely to endorse animal use than those in midwifery or physical therapy — showing that the deeper someone’s involvement in biomedical science, the more likely they are to support practices that harm animals.What explains this? The researchers identified a psychological mechanism called instrumental harm: the idea that it’s acceptable to hurt others if the outcome seems beneficial. In this case, that “other” just happens to be a non-human animal. Strangling Rats to Simulate Domestic AbuseThis mindset isn’t just theoretical — it manifests in shocking real-world experiments. In Australia, researchers <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/14/rats-strangled-in-part-government-funded-australian-domestic-violence-study-ntwnfb" href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/14/rats-strangled-in-part-government-funded-australian-domestic-violence-study-ntwnfb" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">strangled adolescent female rats</a> using silicon bands weighed down with three times their body weight. Some were also shot in the head with high-speed projectiles to simulate traumatic brain injuries. Others got both treatments. Anaesthetic was used before the procedures, but painkillers were withheld until after.Why? To “improve detection of brain injuries in survivors of intimate partner violence.” Apparently, the fact that biomarkers of brain trauma are already well-documented in humans wasn’t enough to stop someone from getting $1.9 million in public funding to suffocate rats instead.Minutes after being injured, the rats were forced to walk and perform memory tasks. And then they were killed. The Illusion of EthicsThis experiment was approved by an ethics committee. Like every other animal experiment. But let’s be clear: the existence of an ethics committee does not make an experiment ethical.Approval is granted based on a cost-benefit analysis — one that never considers the animal’s point of view. The rats didn’t consent. They had no say in whether their lives were worth trading for a theoretical benefit. The public didn’t either. Ethics committees are typically made up of people with ties to the institution or even the research itself. Transparency is non-existent. The suffering is very real.This is the norm — not the exception. The Root of the Problem: SpeciesismThese experiments continue because of an unchallenged belief: that animals are ours to use. That their lives matter less. That harming them is acceptable if it might benefit us.This is speciesism — the idea that one species (ours) is more important than all others. And it runs deep.Research shows men are more likely to support animal testing than women — a pattern going back to the 19th century, when women were at the forefront of the anti-vivisection movement. Lower empathy, a higher desire for control, and a tendency to dominate other beings all correlate with greater support for experimentation.Those who view animals as commodities — to eat, to wear, to hunt, to fight — are also more likely to view them as disposable test subjects. It’s not about science. It’s about mindset.And yet, the evidence is clear: the more empathetic someone is, the less likely they are to support these experiments. Science Without SacrificeHere’s the irony: the same scientific advancements used to justify animal experimentation also prove that we no longer need it.We have alternatives. Clinical trials. Human cell cultures. Organoids. Computational models. Neuroimaging. These are more accurate, more ethical, and more relevant to humans. And they don’t involve torturing other animals behind closed doors.But instead of fully investing in these alternatives, governments and institutions continue pouring money into outdated methods. Why? Because old habits die hard. Because industries protect themselves. And because people are more comfortable with the illusion of progress than the discomfort of change. The Path to EmancipationAppealing to morality alone won’t dismantle this system — not when scientific authority is used to override it. We must challenge the legitimacy of animal experimentation on all fronts: ethically, scientifically, and socially.Expose the inefficiency. Undermine the cost-benefit logic. Dismantle the belief that other animals exist for us.And above all, stop pretending that putting animals in cages and calling it science makes it any less of a violation.Until we confront the supremacy at the heart of animal experimentation — until we stop treating animals as resources and start recognising them as individuals — the suffering will continue.It’s not about progress. It’s about power.

The Science of Suffering: Why Animal Experimentation Still Thrives

There’s something especially bleak about an industry dressing up exploitation in cartoons and sunshine. That’s exactly what The Happy Egg Co does - slapping a smile on slavery and calling it breakfast.You’ve probably seen the boxes: bright yellow, cheerful branding, idyllic fields, beaming hens practically doing yoga in the grass. But behind those animated meadows lies a reality that couldn’t be further from happy. Happiness First’? Try Beak Trimming First.The Happy Egg Co has just been hit with a <a data-mce-href="https://plantbasednews.org/news/economics/the-happy-egg-co-cma-complaint/" href="https://plantbasednews.org/news/economics/the-happy-egg-co-cma-complaint/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">landmark complaint</a> to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The charge? Misleading the public. Again.This time, it’s A Bit Weird - a non-profit challenging “welfarewashing” in animal agriculture - leading the charge. They’re calling out the company’s absurd claims of “calming and enriching environments” while investigations reveal filthy, crowded sheds, mutilated birds, and barren landscapes. The usual.This isn’t about a couple of rogue farms. It’s about a company that has built its empire on a lie - spinning imagery that shows hens living their best lives while the real ones are debeaked, injured, and crammed into industrial warehouses. Marketing says relaxation and play. Reality says feather loss and fractured bones. Free-Range Fairy Tales<a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Hens-Trapped-Indoors-But-Still-Sold-as-Free-Rang-Y8Y31BIA7T" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Hens-Trapped-Indoors-But-Still-Sold-as-Free-Rang-Y8Y31BIA7T" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Free-range means next to nothing</a>. Birds might technically have access to an outdoor area, but that doesn’t mean they can use it. At one Happy Egg supplier, the outdoor “range” was little more than mud and splinters.This isn’t just a branding issue. It’s mass deception. 74% of UK shoppers say animal welfare influences their buying choices. So companies like The Happy Egg Co milk that concern for cash, painting a fantasy to keep consumers from thinking too hard. It’s not just dishonest - it’s calculated. Male Chicks Don’t Make It to the Box 🐣Behind every carton of eggs - yes, even the “happy” ones - is a slaughterhouse for newborns. Male chicks are useless to the egg industry. They don’t lay eggs, they don’t grow fast enough for meat, so they’re disposed of. Ground up, gassed, suffocated. Take your pick. Just make sure the branding stays cheerful.This isn’t a glitch in the system. This is the system.<figure id="figure-3jyk8k3u71dm9bf80wo" class="selected"><img id="3jyk8k3u71dm9bf80wo" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/36NIJF7Uls0wCiip2Dkpd298QJHPG84jJNfBtuwdkzXcXUcS8doT1S3w6NYF7AxM.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/36NIJF7Uls0wCiip2Dkpd298QJHPG84jJNfBtuwdkzXcXUcS8doT1S3w6NYF7AxM.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> Diseased by DesignIf the ethics don’t put you off, the disease risk should. Industrial egg farms - whether “free-range” or not - are perfect breeding grounds for pandemics. Bird flu has already jumped to mammals. Salmonella thrives in filthy conditions. And the next zoonotic outbreak? It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.Eggs are a public health hazard with a smiley face. The Happy Egg Co Knows Exactly What It’s DoingThis is far from the first time they’ve been called out. In 2024, the ASA received complaints about their misleading adverts. Matthew Glover, founder of Veganuary, nailed it when he called it “welfarewashing.” And now they’re facing legal pressure that could finally force some accountability.But don’t expect a confession. The company denies it all, claiming “stringent welfare standards” and name-dropping third-party audits. Here’s the thing: if your business depends on abusing animals, no amount of RSPCA Assured stickers will sanitise that. Eggs Are a Habit, Not a NeedLet’s drop the pretense that eggs are essential. Every function an egg performs - moisture, binding, leavening - plants do better. Banana. Aquafaba. Flaxseed. Vinegar. Tofu. It’s all there. No mutilation required.Want a cooked breakfast? Chickpea omelette. Tofu scramble. Liquid egg replacers that look, cook, and taste like ovulations - without the exploitation.Want to bake? Use mashed fruit, dairy-free yogurt, or one of the thousands of tried-and-tested vegan recipes already out there. No need to “veganise” a recipe when someone else already nailed it without the cruelty. Don’t Buy the FantasyThe Happy Egg Co sells one thing: a lie. A comforting story to distract people from the reality of commodifying living beings. But no amount of pastel packaging or cartoon hens can justify the systematic breeding, mutilating, and killing of animals for something we don’t need.These birds don’t get a happy ending. They don’t get a choice. And they don’t need enrichment toys - they need emancipation.This isn’t about welfare. It’s about property status. About reducing someone to a unit of profit. Whether it’s a tiny cage or a muddy field, whether there’s a plastic toy in the shed or not, the underlying injustice is the same: these individuals are used as tools. Their bodies, their babies, their lives - not their own.We don’t need better exploitation. We need abolition. Don’t Just Sign the Petition - Reject the ProductYes, A Bit Weird has launched a petition calling for a name change. And yes, that’s funny. But the real action? Don’t buy the eggs. Not the “happy” ones. Not the “free-range” ones. Not the “organic” ones. They’re all part of the same system.You can break the habit. You can reject the lie. Because eggs aren’t food - they’re propaganda.And once you see that, the box doesn’t look so cheerful anymore.

The Happy Egg Co: A Masterclass in Consumer Manipulation

Romulus. Remus. Khaleesi. No, this isn’t the start of a Game of Thrones reboot - it’s the names given to three genetically modified puppies born in a lab and hailed as “de-extincted” dire wolves. Headlines call it “magic.” Scientists call it “progress.” <a data-mce-href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/dire-wolves-extinction-george-rr-martin-b2729549.html" href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/dire-wolves-extinction-george-rr-martin-b2729549.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">George R.R. Martin cried</a>. But the real tragedy here isn’t the tearful joy of a fantasy author - it’s the quiet, unchallenged exploitation behind this biotech vanity project.Because let’s be honest: these aren’t dire wolves. They’re designer dogs.Despite the hype, what Colossal Biosciences has produced is not a return from extinction, but a Frankenstein hybrid made using grey wolves, domestic dogs, and a pinch of ancient DNA. Even the <a data-mce-href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9ejy3gdvo" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9ejy3gdvo" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">experts are saying it:</a> “genetically modified grey wolves,” “hybrids,” “not actually dire wolves.” But let’s say they were - would that make it any better? Fiction Dressed as ScienceThe whole spectacle is dressed in nostalgia and pop culture references. Dire wolves are trendy thanks to television. Their supposed rebirth makes for a good headline. Add a celebrity investor and a private 2,000-acre preserve and it all starts to feel more like Jurassic Park meets Silicon Valley than science in service of the planet.But beneath the PR gloss, animals are being treated as nothing more than raw material. Cells taken from grey wolves. Eggs from dogs. Surrogates implanted with edited embryos and forced to give birth by caesarean section - just to produce something that looks a bit like a creature that disappeared 10,000 years ago.That’s not conservation. That’s exploitation. The Illusion of EmancipationThis isn’t about saving species. It’s not about ecological restoration. And it certainly isn’t about respecting animals. It's about power - over life, death, and genetics. It's about humans playing god, then applauding themselves for it.These puppies weren’t born free. They were made. Designed. Owned. Destined to spend their lives on a private facility, monitored and managed like bio-tech exhibits. They aren’t ambassadors for nature - they're billboards for a billion-dollar company.The irony? Dire wolves once roamed freely, powerful and wild. Now their "successors" are laboratory products with brand consultants and cultural advisers. Consent? Never Heard of It.Every step of this process is soaked in supremacism. No animal volunteered to be harvested, dissected, genetically rewritten or used as a surrogate. No dog signed up to carry cloned embryos. And the resulting wolves? Created for human fascination, not for their own sake.They are not ends in themselves. They are means to a marketing campaign. Extinction Isn’t a Glitch to PatchScientists admit the ancient DNA was too degraded to clone. So they tweaked a living genome until it looked “close enough.” Just 20 edits to 14 genes out of 19,000. That's all it took to create a wolf that’s a little bigger, a little whiter, and conveniently more telegenic.But calling this “de-extinction” is like gluing feathers on a lizard and calling it a phoenix.Extinction is not a challenge to reverse - it’s a warning. A symptom of exploitation, habitat destruction, and indifference. If your response to extinction is to recreate the victim in a lab while continuing business as usual, you haven’t solved the problem. You’ve monetised it. What About the Animals Still Here?While the world gawks at faux-dinosaurs in fur coats, real species are being pushed to the edge - and beyond. Forests are vanishing. Oceans are dying. Billions of animals are used, discarded, and erased every year. But apparently, they’re not exciting enough. Not mythical enough. Not marketable enough.Conservation isn’t camera-friendly. But cloning? That gets headlines. That gets investment.Colossal has already made moves to clone red wolves, allegedly to “increase genetic diversity.” Sounds noble, until you remember that red wolves exist right now - and their biggest threat isn’t their genetics. It’s bullets, bulldozers, and bureaucrats.No gene-editing kit will fix that. Romanticising ControlWhen people cry over lab-created wolves and call it “magic,” what they’re really celebrating is control. The power to recreate life. The thrill of resurrection. It flatters the human ego: we’re not just part of nature - we can rewrite it.But justice for animals isn’t found in gene sequences and staged photo ops. It’s found in rejecting their use entirely. It’s found in recognising that they’re not ours to own, breed, edit, or replicate. Not when they’re alive, and certainly not when they’re gone. The Future Isn’t a Zoo of the PastThis obsession with “bringing back” extinct animals is a distraction. It encourages a mindset where nothing is truly lost, where destruction is temporary and consequences can be reversed with enough money and tech.It's a lie.And worse - it normalises the very mindset that caused the extinction in the first place: that animals are resources. That we can fix ecological collapse without addressing the industries and ideologies responsible for it.You want to honour dire wolves? Stop making replicas. Stop using animals as experiments. And start protecting the beings we’re still lucky enough to share the planet with - while they’re still here.Because extinction is forever. And no amount of genetic tinkering will change that.

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

The Carnivore Diet: Just A Dangerous Fad

Eat Like Your Life Depends on It

Grass-Fed Lies

The Science of Suffering: Why Animal Experimentation Stil...

The Happy Egg Co: A Masterclass in Consumer Manipulation

Game of Clones: The Fantasy of De-Extinction