Life
The exploitation of animals is the key injustice within our current society; the anticolonialists are right that the colonialism was reimported and applied on all societies; but the declaration of humans to animal-like beings was the ruse that allowed to ignore their right to exist. But on what logic is the devaluation of animals footed? It is apparent that many animals are able to think, to feel, to be conscious - so one can't declare that this is the key that can be used to declare the application of human rights fit. And beside of this: What about the humans that can't think, feel, or be conscious - clearly, this wouldn't legitimate to exploit or kill them. With this being clear, the only possible way is to make the application of human rights dependent of the outer form - similar to the imago dei within the abrahamic religions. But this idea is not only illogical (since it would allow to hurt a being that is, except for the outer form, identical to a human), but also has snares attached to it: Since humans might appear in various forms, it makes human rights dependent of the definition of humanity, and thus dependent of the convenience of the hegemon: At their will, the mighty might declare people into non-humans dependent on factual or constructed attributes - and this has happened over the course of history again and again. It also became clearly apparent that a human can't be delimited from its environment - as Donna Haraway pointed out, humans are not only in reality a collective of cells, bacteria, and fungi that form what we perceive as a individual, but do also meld with their surroundings: A prosthesis being used by a human becomes part of the human. Killing the soil a village is dependent of means killing the village. If you are using a computer, you and this computer or book form - at least for the moment - a unity. All of us, while being individuals, are also part of a giant whole, and human rights can not reflect this - indeed the enlightenment couldn't even stop the most terrible cruelties from happening. Instead, we need to establish a ideology that values the value of life itself - no matter of its form. Not only (and this should be enough) because it is the right thing on both an abstract logic and an idealistic scale, but also because it showed that the way things were managed until now lead us into a dead end: Only a radical change might save us from our lurking demise. Anarchist thinkers contrived that as essential rule, every individual should be free to satisfy its essential needs. Any attempt, however, to assuage a desire for non-essential goods on the cost of another individual must be ousted - but only if this logic is also applied to animals, plants, or even semi-abstract ideals as landscapes, collectives, or eco-systems we have a chance to successfully co-exist with the world that we must see through the lense of the current state of thought. The most challenging part of this, after establishing such a system against the resistance of the now mighty, is to weigh and discuss the essentiality of things for individuals in a fair and truthful way: There is always the risk of gliding into hypocrisy or to lose the legitimization by limiting the individuals attempt to follow its desires to much. But while perfection can never be reached (Hegels problem of cohesion-heat) we must attempt to approach it.