**3. Results**

#### *3.1. The Characteristics of Ecoterrorism*

The belief of human superiority over all other beings [16] was rarely negated within the European culture. However, everything changed in the 1970s, when, within the framework of the culture, an extremist trend appeared that changed gentle activism into unprecedented committed radicalism. Today, ecologically motivated violence is no longer a marginal phenomenon. The data published by the FBI shows that among 112 attacks carried out between 1986 and 2005 in the United States, classified as terrorism, 57 were organized by groups or individuals motivated by environmental or animal-rights ideologies, such as Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Arissa, Animal Rights Militia, Band of Mercy, Justice Department, Animal Liberation Brigade, Vegan Dumpster Militia, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Direct Action Front.

Although, in the United States, there were only nine attacks in 1986–1997, the number grew to 48 in 1998–2005 [17]. The total number of incidents in the USA between 1979 and 2008 committed by ecological extremists was around 2000, and their total cost was estimated at \$110 million [18]. These statistics do not include minor vandalism attacks, or small acts of violence against people, or, finally, botnet swarm attacks [19]. R. L. Young's doctoral dissertation examined the period, 1993–2003, and identified over 1400 incidents of terrorism committed by environmental and animal rights extremists [20], while Varriale-Carson, LaFree, and Dugan documented 1069 criminal incidents committed by these groups between 1970 and 2007 [21].

According to the data of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, in 1981–2005, there were 529 ecology-related crimes committed in the United States, including 53 arson attacks, 123 thefts, 36 bombings, 238 acts of vandalism, and 79 cases of harassment. A particular increase in crimes occurred after 1999. In 1998, there were only seven registered incidents of that kind, but in 1999, the number grew to 27, and the trend continued—in 2000 there were 28 of them, in 2001—42, 2002—17, 2003—101, 2004—99, 2005—82, and so on [22]. According to the data presented by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, in the United States alone, there were 239 attacks between 1995 and 2010—arson (38%) and bombing attacks (62%), perpetrated by environmental (54.8%) and animal-rights extremists (45.2%)—mainly the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and the ELF (Earth Liberation Front). More than 42% of these attacks resulted in severe financial losses [23,24]. These data indicate an increase in the number of incidents in 1995 through 2001, a variation in the number of incidents until 2010, and a relatively stable level after 2010 [24].

According to the data gathered by AnimalRighstsExtremism.info, there were 27 serious incidents worldwide between April 2012 and 5 September 2016 [25]. In 2010–2019, animal rights organizations carried out approximately 2521 prohibited acts, including sabotage, arson, "liberation" actions (in 2019—264, in 2018—306, in 2017—225, in 2016—124, in 2015—139, in 2014—214, in 2013—241, in 2012—251, in 2011—387, in 2010—370) [26]. The Global Terrorism Index states that attacks on facilities and infrastructure were the most common form of terrorist attacks in the US between 2002 and 2018, with a total number of 239 attacks. The majority of attacks were carried out by animal rights and environmentalist groups. It should be stressed, however, that these types of attacks result in very low casualties and rarely have loss of life as the main goal [27]. According to William Brani ff, the Director of National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, between 2000–2009, animal rights and environmentally motivated terrorist attacks were carried out by Animal Liberation Front (Coalition to Save the Preserves, Earth Liberation Front, Environmentalists, Revenge of the Threes, Revolutionary Cells, Animal Liberation Brigade). In 2010—2019, in the US, there were six terrorist attacks that can be attributed to Animal Liberation Front, one attributed to the Justice Department, and three to environmentalist groups. One deadly attack was carried out by an anonymous person driven by broadly conceived ecological ideology [10]. Of course, these statistics are highly selective and do not take into account the attacks carried out in Europe and other various parts of the world.

#### *3.2. Reasons for the Emergence of Ecological Extremism*

The reasons for the emergence of environmental and animal-rights extremisms seem to be di fferent. The sources of the former could be found in the early 1960s, when the correlation between the increase of exploitation of natural resources and the growth of prosperity started to be questioned for the very first time. Moreover, more and more people (mainly in the U.S.) began to realize that the possibility of an ecological crisis is real, and when it occurs, it will threaten all the species living on the earth. This emerging environmental awareness quickly resulted in protective activities. As early as in the second half of the 1960s, the consumer movements in the United States started to demand the right for "the natural environment that would correspond to the needs of the human body and high quality of life." More and more organizations were established to lobby for the natural environment. Despite the high activity of these movements, their actions did not bring forth expected results, or the results did not satisfy all of the members, who increasingly demanded more radical forms of fighting for the conservation of the natural environment. The 1979 decision of the U.S. Forest Service to use 36 million acres of forest areas for commercial purposes; the so-called RARE II ("Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II") was, as it seems, a turning point in the formation of green extremism. The decision was a grea<sup>t</sup> shock for some environmental activists. It not only showed the lack of ecological awareness of the agency, but also demonstrated the weakness of the traditional environmental organizations that were not able to oppose it, or did not want to, due to e.g., their relationship with large corporations and governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies, as well as large internal bureaucracy. Because of general dissatisfaction caused by this decision and the unfavorable climate around the "legal environmental organizations", several groups were established, the sole purpose of which was to decisively (and not necessarily lawfully) combat the growing indi fference towards the natural environment [28].

The emergence of the animal rights extremism is more di fficult to picture, since it is problematic to point out a turning point that could be considered to be an "ideological trigger" of the animal-rights radicalism. It is so probably because the process of becoming radical was evolutionary, not revolutionary; it was a consequence of ever stronger and courageous demands regarding broadening moral horizons, so they included all previously discriminated groups of beings, including those who are unable to articulate the liberation postulates themselves. The animal rights movement was born in the 19th century in England, and although initially, the source of its motivation were not animals but human beings, more precisely, their spiritual and moral development; the movement relatively quickly tried to reject this "narrow anthropocentric perspective" in order to entirely equalize the respect of the interests of all sentient beings. This was the path that facilitated a formulation; in the 1970s, the most radical (and ye<sup>t</sup> very catchy) claim of the modern "liberation movement" so far, namely that the discrimination of a creature only because of its belonging to a particular species is a superstition as immoral as racism or sexism. In contrast to the environmental extremism, which constituted to the influence of an eco-systemic threat, the radical movement of animal protection came into being, because of an altruistic development of moral awareness.

In the second half of the 20th century, this development brought about a real abundance of radical animal-rights groups fighting for a total ban on exploitation and killing of animals. The activities of radical groups defending the rights of animals, as well as those fighting for protection and conservation of the natural environment, are often analyzed together under the umbrella terms "ecological terrorism" or [29–31]. Such an approach is justified by the fact that many organizations belonging to the two movements closely cooperate, because their objectives, in many respects, confluence. Despite the convergence of the goals and quite similar intra-organizational structure (leaderless resistance model),

there are some ideological di fferences between the radical environment activists and animal rights defenders that prevent them from a complete organizational convergence. Such di fferences also mean that some researchers (such as Wayman Mullins, Kenneth Dudonis, David Schulz, Sean Eagan) distinguish between ecoterrorism or environmental terrorism, understood as violence in defense of nature, and animal rights terrorism, understood as violence in the defense of animals [32–34]. The Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front are, respectively, the most prominent representatives of those two types.

The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) was founded in England in 1992, by former members of Earth First!. The group's aim is to restore the original ecosystems, which in the opinion of the group's members, have been destroyed as a result of immoral and selfish human activities. According to Earth First!, adopting an uncompromising view, based on the philosophy of deep ecology attitude towards the natural environment, is a necessary condition to achieve this goal. Moreover, such an attitude should be expressed by direct actions. The ELF's attacks are aimed primarily at timber companies, institutions promoting genetic engineering, construction companies, car sellers, and power generating and distribution businesses, as well as, it is worth emphasizing, all structures that embody the "greed and injustice of the capitalist state" [35]. This last point requires a short elucidation, for the ELF does not only want to destroy the capitalist system, but also to remove profit as a motive for action from all spheres of social life [36].

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the largest extremist animal-rights group, was founded in 1976 by Ronnie Lee. The main goal of the group is to fight all forms of human exploitation of animals. Their attacks are aimed primarily at the meat production, food, pharmaceutical, fur, zoological industries, as well as research institutions. In the first period of its activity, the most frequent method used by the group was sabotage: freeing animals, inserting sticky substances into holes in locks, destroying equipment, painting on windows or breaking them. This relatively mild period of the ALF's activity ended in the 1980s, when the group began to organize acts of economic sabotage, like arson, planting explosive and incendiary devices, devastating laboratory equipment, or bricking up windows in butcher shops. The radicalism of the ALF grew in the mid-1980s, when the group started attacking people. The attacks most often consisted of threats, intimidation, and relatively minor cases of assault and battery, although sometimes, more drastic acts of violence also occurred (planting explosive devices in the homes of people working in companies exploiting animals) [37].

#### *3.3. Ideological Basis as a Source of Radicalism*

The ideological foundation of the radical environmental and animal rights movements is undoubtedly anti-anthropocentrism that manifests itself in the belief that the human being is not a unique and superior element of the world. Human beings, therefore, should not occupy a privileged place among other beings. However, the category of "other beings" is not shared by the two ecological radical movements. According to the animal rights activists, it is limited to sentient beings (who possess the so-called interests), and according to environmentalists, it includes all-natural creatures (including those inanimate as well).

Another di fference is the placement of moral value. In the case of environmental radicals, this placement is of holistic nature, i.e., it is based on the belief that nature is not a mere collection of living and inanimate beings, but a biogenic whole that is infinitely more perfect than its individual human or non-human forms of existence [38]. This whole is not an aggregate—it possesses peculiar characteristics that cannot be reduced to the characteristics of its constituents (i.e., it is not merely a sum of the properties of its individual parts). Analyzing this claim from an ethical perspective, may lead to the conclusion that nature as a whole has a higher moral value than the individuals that constitute it. It is well reflected by the words of Aldo Leopold from his *A Sand County Almanac:* "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise" [39]. Hence, nature is, primarily, entitled to respect and protection, and its less perfect parts should be considered in the second place. The practical dimension of this claim refers to

the threat posed by environmental extremists, which may be the gradation of beings (certain parts of the whole that belong to the lower levels of the food chain have higher moral value than the ones that are on the top, e.g., the existence of oceanic plankton or soil bacteria is essential for the functioning of the ecosystem, while the existence of humans or tigers is not necessary). Secondly, due to the integrity of the ecosystem, the life of the representative of the endangered species should be given a higher value than the life of the human being, whose species is not threatened with extinction. Thirdly, since the human being threatens the entire ecosystem and does not seem to be necessary for its functioning, it can be stated that it would be better for the ecosystem if the human species disappeared entirely from the surface of the planet.

From the perspective of prognostic considerations, it should be acknowledged that the above claim may also lead to a hypothesis that, as long as human activities do not directly threaten nature as a whole, but merely harm certain parts of it that do not possess a full autonomous moral value, it can be expected that the environmental organizations will use non-threatening forms of persuasion. It is especially so because of their strong conviction of the sanctity of all life, including human life precluding such attacks. Still, for many radical environmentalists, the human beings are "problematic"—they are, indeed, a part of nature, but, at the same time, go beyond it through their hostile actions towards nature. As part of nature, they are obviously entitled to protection; as the beings that destroy nature—condemnation, or perhaps even exclusion from the biological community. These two perspectives of looking at the human being overlap and intersect. However, this stando ff does not have to be permanent. It may change as soon as a severe ecological crisis occurs; one that will not pose a threat to some parts of the ecosystem, but to nature as a whole, which is given almost divine status by environmentalists. Then, one can expect a significant radicalization of their actions, that might target not only individual people, but all humankind.

Of course, the belief that human activity threatens the ecosystem as a whole is always a subjective, to a certain degree, conviction. Moreover, apparently, such a subjective conviction guided the actions of the R.I.S.E group [40], which, in 1972, hoping for the annihilation of the human species [32], decided to reach for, in their opinion the most reliable remedy—pathogens (corynebacterium diphtheria, neisseria meningitides, salmonella typhi, shigella sonnei) [40]. The pathogens were to be sprayed in supermarkets and large buildings using special aerosols, and for contamination of the water supply system of Chicago. It was not the only case of using a biological weapon by an environmental group. In 1981, a not well-known group called Dark Harvest Commando in protest against anthrax contamination, during World War II, of a small Gruinard Island located close to the Scottish mainland, placed a package containing the soil taken from the island in front of the Chemical Defense Establishment in Porton Down in Wiltshire. A few days later, a similar package was dropped o ff at the conference of the ruling Conservative Party in Blackpool [41].

The animal rights movements place moral value in individuals. A distinctive feature of their ideology is what could be called an "individual approach", which is manifested in the belief that the life and well-being of the individual has the priority. A person has the right to defend them even if, in consequence, it will necessarily lead to an infringement of the well-being of the ecological community they are a part of. Moral value is attributed here, above all, to individuals [42]. The latter category, according to the defenders of animal rights, includes all living beings capable of feeling pleasure and su ffering, and thus has interests [43]. Among such beings, there are, of course, human beings and animals. Killing morally significant individuals (the one possessing moral value) is treated as the greatest crime that has to be firmly fought against. The consequences stemming from the adopted by the animal activists' assumptions are unequivocal. If we accept that animals, as well as people, have the same capacity for su ffering and the right to equal treatment, then we must also recognize that their often cruel exploitation is evil and comparable to what slaves experienced at plantations or prisoners in concentration camps [44]. If it is additionally accepted that this evil must be necessarily opposed with the use of all possible and adequate means, then using violence against humans begins to appear as the supreme moral obligation [37].

Still, the evil that the animal rights activists fight against is rather individual, not collective in nature. In their writings, there are not many references to the collective responsibility or catastrophic visions of the end of the world. "Animal executioners" have names and addresses; they are concrete people who must be stopped or even "neutralized" at any cost. There have been several attempts of such "neutralization." One dramatic attempt of resorting to violence in the United States was an incident involving an activist, who in November 1988, was apprehended at the premises of the United States Surgical Corporation (a company that used dogs for testing surgical staples), while she was planting a high-class explosive device equipped with a radio igniter at the parking spot of the head of the facility. In February 1990, the Dean of the Veterinary School of the University of Tennessee was shot to death on his private farm. A month earlier, local police received a warning from the FBI National Crime Information Center that animal rights extremists threatened to murder the Dean in the next 12 months. On 6 May 2002, another activist committed a murder, which was intended to protect the "weakest part of society", in which, as it seems, he included animals [45]. In spite of the attacks of that type, humanity, according to animal-rights extremists, is not an impediment to the liberation of animals. People and animals can live in peace and harmony. Therefore, it seems impossible that the radical animal-rights activists would be willing to target humans. On the other hand, it is plausible and should be assumed that violence against individuals blamed for the oppression of animals is unlikely to diminish. On the contrary, it can even, given the growing willingness to challenge anthropocentrism, significantly escalate and radicalize.
