Two decades ago, when an old ranger recounted how he shot a golden eagle for preying on a wild goat, it sparked a profound mental challenge: where do animal rights stand in human thought? Should we not, just as we contemplate human rights, also be concerned about the rights of other living beings? Or are human rights and the rights of other creatures inherently separate? While providing a definitive answer to these questions might be elusive, we can at least identify perspectives that illuminate pathways for addressing them.

For centuries, humans were certain that the Earth was the center of the universe, a delusion so deeply entrenched in belief systems that questioning it was deemed heretical and punishable by death. Yet, it seems that the baseless assumption of a “geocentric universe” is not the only illusion to have fostered distorted beliefs. The illusion of “human-centered existence,” wherein all creatures exist solely for human benefit, is not only more deeply ingrained than the geocentric worldview but also remains costly to challenge today, potentially condemning modern-day Galileos to ideological courts. This presumption has introduced the assertion that “humans are the supreme creatures,” a belief embraced without contemplation and interpreted as granting humans the right to exploit other beings. Rarely has the question been asked: “If humans are indeed the supreme creatures, does this supremacy grant them rights over others, or impose duties toward them?”

Imagine relocating to a new city and settling in a neighborhood while forming connections with its residents. Suppose we learn that a particular family in the neighborhood is reputed for their nobility. What would our expectations of such a noble family be? Would we anticipate that, due to their nobility, they have the right to expand their home by seizing and demolishing their neighbors’ houses, raid others’ refrigerators to enhance the taste of their meals, or, if they deem fit, draw blood from others for the seasoning of their food, causing neighbors to live in constant fear and submission? Or would we expect them to be generous, harmless, benevolent, supportive, and reliable, evoking a sense of peace whenever encountered? If our assumptions about nobility lean toward the latter, should we not revisit and assess humanity’s behavior toward other living beings to see whether it aligns more with nobility or with villainy?

We can also explore human and animal rights from another angle, focusing on how respecting animal rights impacts the implementation of human rights. Attaining fundamental rights like physical health, mental well-being, security, livelihood, peace, clean air, and safe water in a sustainable manner requires the preservation of environmental stability and ecosystem services as an indispensable precondition. While a few decades ago, the theoretical link between ecosystem sustainability and access to rights like security, peace, and livelihood might have seemed abstract and intangible, the crises of recent decades have not only validated but also amplified and deepened this theory. Challenges such as water scarcity and quality tensions, serious risks to food security, energy crises, social and political tensions between territories and nations, and the emergence and spread of novel diseases are clear examples, all rooted in environmental damage and, specifically, the degradation of ecosystem services.

Here arises the question: does respecting animal rights play a role in maintaining environmental stability and the uninterrupted provision of ecosystem services? A detailed examination of environmental structures and ecosystem service mechanisms reveals the fundamental role of biodiversity. From the carbon and water cycles to agricultural productivity and from disease feedback loops to energy resource management, biodiversity underpins them all. Even a minor disruption—not in the existence or population of a species, but merely in its distribution patterns or behavior—can impose a chain of imbalances on ecological cycles, disrupting environmental sustainability and ecosystem services. More so, the maximum stresses of widespread species extinctions, population fluctuations, changes in the distribution and range of organisms, and alterations to their living conditions could lead to long-term mega-crises across the globe.