Social Justice Watcher

BLOOM TECH STUDIO

Fri, 03 Jul 2026 05:46:10 -0700

🌸 Free Girls' Coding Workshop — Registration Open! 🌸

Open to all girls in grades 6–8
Taught by outstanding high school students from Sage Hill School in partnership with the APP-in Club
Free online coding experience!

✨ Design your own simple app
✨ Learn how technology solves real-world problems
✨ Spark creative thinking and experience the joy of coding
✨ Encourage more girls to boldly explore the world of technology

Date: July 5 (Sunday), 10:00–11:00 AM (PST)
Format: Online via Zoom
Cost: Completely free

Scan the QR code to register! Feel free to share with parents who might be interested.
For more details, visit our website:Read More

Finding Peace in an Unjust Era: A Lesson From Seals

Mon, 15 Jun 2026 19:18:10 -0700

“Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace,” wrote Nobel Peace Prize winner Albert Schweitzer while proposing a code of universal ethics he dubbed “Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben,” or Reverence for Life. It was arguably a landmark of modern environmental ethics, or possibly even an early vision of the modern environmental movement.

At its core, Schweitzer argues that human morality is incomplete if it remains anthropocentric. To extend protection to all species means recognizing that life itself, and therefore all living beings, have intrinsic value. To achieve inner peace, humans must see the natural world less as a resource for development and more as an interdependent community, and so protect everything we can.

Yet such a statement harbors an...Read More

The Scalpel And The Circle

Mon, 15 Jun 2026 19:13:51 -0700

“Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace.

” – Albert Schweitzer.

I still remember when I was having a biology class last year, I stood over a frog and couldn’t make a cut of it. I wasn’t scared, but I felt something about that moment was deeply wrong.

We were told to see it as a “sacrifice”, which a life we could take because it served our purpose. If this were a dog, would we hesitate? And even if this were a human? It has hit me so much that after discovering how humans casually rank lives.

Therefore, it made me reflect on the value of life and how we can truly divide the definition of acceptable, what can and what cannot be.

After that, I read the idea of “reverence of life” by Albert Schweitzer. I realized the feeling of mine standing beside the frog that day. He didn’t directly ask us to be kind and respect the animals but talked about in what ways we can identify the valuable lives and unmeaningful lives. Humans often judge them by their appearance and their use to identify if they deserve our compassion.

Should scientific innovation be slowed if it causes harm to animals, even when it benefits humans?

Mon, 15 Jun 2026 19:11:15 -0700

Over the past centuries, scientific innovation has significantly enhanced human life expectancy, reduced disease, and improved productivity of all experiments in the biological and medical industry (Roser). Several breakthroughs majorly relying on animal experimentation, such as vaccines and organ transplants, undeniably prove to generate positive results (Festing and Wilkinson). However, this approach raises an increasingly urgent ethical concern in modern society - Should humanity continue scientific progress at any cost, or should moral responsibility toward animals place limits on innovation? The widespread dilemma is no longer whether scientific innovation is beneficial, but whether its current methodologies remain justifiable in light of evolving ethical standards and technological capabilities. When scientific innovation causes harm to animals, it should be slowed, questioned, and redefined (Wong). Regardless of the field of innovation, true advancement depends on how we treat vulnerable beings, the cultural and symbolic value of animals, the ability of ethical limits to drive humane scientific solutions, and the reality that humans and animals are ecologically interdependent despite short-term trade-offs.

Importance of Animal Testing in Science

Animal testing has supported numerous major advancements in the...Read More

The Corporate Responsibility: Why Industry Giants Hold the Key to Animal Welfare

Mon, 15 Jun 2026 19:06:07 -0700

Introduction

Every year, more than 80 billion animals are slaughtered for their meat across the world (FAO, 2024). The vast majority of their lives are hidden behind huge, windowless facilities known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). This harsh reality often means that they are mistreated and fall short of the basic five freedoms (Freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, or disease; freedom from fear and distress; Freedom to express normal behavior) needed to ensure an ethical life. As the scale of industrial animal farming increases, the question of who should take responsibility for the welfare of these animals arises. Advancing animal rights in industrial agriculture requires accountability from all parties. Although governments and individuals play a vital role in improving animal treatment, corporations have the most critical role in protecting the welfare of industrial animals, as they directly control the supply chains, follow production standards from the government, and create market incentives for individuals. To improve the welfare of industrial animals, all actors must cooperate by having equal power.

Throughout human history, the scope of justice has gradually expanded. Moral responsibility once applied in family or tribe, then it extended to nations, races, genders and eventually all human beings through the groundbreaking declaration of universal human rights by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948. However, what naturally follows such logic is an ethical question that remains unresolved: should the expansion of moral circle reach non-animals? Albert Schweitzer challenges modern society to reconsider the boundaries of moral concern by stating, “Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace.” Applying both human logic and emotion, there is no reason to object to this statement.

Compassion represents the moral ability to recognize the suffering of others and respond with care and restraint. Peace is not simply the absence of conflict, but a deeper harmony between human actions and social principles.

Moral progress that centers on compassion and aims for peace is incomplete as long as humanity continues to ignore the suffering of other sentient beings. While some critics argue animals can’t possess rights due to lack of rationality or moral agency, the capacity for suffering and the inherent value of animal life justify expanding justice beyond humanity.

The Silence of the Reefs

Mon, 15 Jun 2026 19:01:38 -0700

From an early age, I dreamed of snorkeling in the Maldives. This can be traced back to my favorite documentary series, Blue Planet. The marine world, filled with explosions of color lying beneath turquoise waters, left a deep impression on me. However, when I eventually visited the islands to go snorkeling, I realized it was completely different from the ocean I had pictured.

As I dived into the water, I was left in shock. Despite the different species of marine animals all living together, the reef was not beautiful in the flawless way that I had expected. Between the purple and orange clusters of corals, patches of white coral that seemed extremely brittle were an upsetting sight.

The patches of white coral stood out against the bright fish that were swimming above them, and most were visibly damaged. As I came onshore, I noticed fenced off sections with ‘Reef Regeneration Area’ signs, in which new corals were planted in neat rows to save those corals that were already bleached and damaged. The resort was clearly trying to repair their reefs that were already lost or bleached by the sun.

What I did not understand then was that...Read More

Scientific Progress and Animal Ethics: Toward a More Moral Approach for Research Innovation

Mon, 15 Jun 2026 18:58:15 -0700

Introduction

Scientific innovation has long been regarded as a vital engine of human progress and improvements in the quality of life. From vaccine development to therapies and treatments for complex diseases, many medical breakthroughs depend on experimental research, in which animal experimentation plays a dominant role. Over 115 million animals are used in scientific research worldwide each year, including mice, rats, rabbits, and non-human primates (Akhtar, 2015). However, animal experimentation has also raised increasing ethical controversy and discussions. When scientific research can yield benefits for human health, is it morally acceptable to impose harm on animals solely for the sake of medical progress? This question makes animal experimentation a complex issue that involves scientific, ethical, and philosophical dimensions. Growing evidence suggests that animals possess not only the ability to feel pain but also complex psychological traits, such as emotions, memories, and social relationships (National Research Council, 2009; Andrews & Monsó, 2021). If animals are capable of experiencing suffering and have some degree of awareness, then treating them merely as technical tools becomes difficult to justify morally. Therefore, this essay argues that scientific innovation should be slowed when it harms animals. Nevertheless, it does not suggest that scientific progress should be halted; rather, it emphasizes finding an alternative path to promote it and underscores that scientific progress should be balanced with moral responsibility.

In March 2026, a mugshot of Alexandra Paul, an actress in Baywatch, went viral on social media. It was not because of a DUI or drug use, like why other celebrities were caught, but for breaking into a breeding facility that supplies beagles for animal testing and took 31 beagles away. This incident brought animal testing back into the spotlight and resurfaced the old question: Should we allow scientists to conduct animal experiments for technological development?

Whether activists like Ms. Paul like it or not, animal experimentation has become increasingly common, particularly within the pharmaceutical industry. Before a vaccine is released to the public, it goes through many rounds of animal testing. In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, researchers first tested the vaccine on small animals, like mice, to evaluate immune responses, then conducted challenge experiments and trials on primates to confirm protection and safety before moving to human trials. Therefore, animal testing remains necessary in pharmaceutical research to ensure human safety and to gain the biological understanding required...Read More

My Perspective on the Objectification of Equestrian Care

Mon, 15 Jun 2026 18:52:42 -0700

The day’s training had come to an end. The horse ranch, in the evening, was filled with the scent of fresh hay. I led my horse, Jiaotang, back to the stable. Three-year-old Jiaotang always came to me, asking for pets. Looking at her adorable face, I recalled the first time we met. A year ago, we met by chance during a training session. At that time, we had just finished the physical training and I was leaning against the fence to rest when I saw my coach leading a young horse I had never seen before. Unlike the others, she didn’t walk in calmly, as if careful to observe the other horses training. Jiaotangwas just an ordinary, timid, and mischievous horse,...Read More