Objective:

Criticize The “Animalist”, “Anti-Speciesism” And “Vegan” Social Movements, Questioning The Validity Of The Conception That Their Defenders Have Of Their Own Humanity And Of The Demonization Of The Human Being.

Methodology:

The analysis applies two basic analytical principles: against a naive constructivism, it proposes to analyze not only the "representations" about the relationships between humans and animals, but also the "practices" understood in their materiality. Likewise, according to the Weberian distinction the author adopts an “ethic of responsibility” attentive to practical consequences and not only to abstract considerations of ethical principles, as does the “ethic of conviction”. Starting from these principles, he carries out his analysis based on the history and anthropology of animal domestication and the relationships between humans and animals, on recent statistical data and on a review of contemporary literature, news and legislation.

Results:

Highlighting the argumentative absurdities and the political and economic risks of the movement under the label of "animalism."

Limitations:

Although the author refers to a general historical and anthropological knowledge, as well as to some data on an international scale, the study is focused on France. On the other hand, although this does not weaken their arguments, they could give room for a nuance regarding the negative effects, also real, of the excessive production and consumption of meat and poultry, as well as of unregulated fishing, in the world.

Conclusions:

The author concludes that the animalist movement (along with anti-speciesism and veganism) in France, and by extension in other parts of the world (particularly the United States of America), that tends to gain more and more followers and influence in legislative debates, represents a political danger that could have disastrous consequences for human health and for the economy of many countries.