**5. Discussion**

It is undoubtedly the fact that the sensitivity of society to environmental problems has considerably increased over the past few decades. Nobody now negates the need to care for the welfare of our planet and its inhabitants. Despite sustained development and the increasing popularity of the environmentalist movement, as well as eco-friendly legislation adopted by many governments, the destruction of the natural environment progresses rapidly. Oil stains, clusters of trash in the oceans, the mass felling of Siberian and Amazon forests, air pollution, water poisoning, soil degradation, not to

mention the greenhouse e ffect, are the facts to which, despite the declared indignation, one gets no real widespread and spirited reaction. Environmental and animal-rights activists often see this incapacity for self-restraint as a manifestation of destructive property intrinsic to human nature, which leads to a global ecological disaster/catastrophe. The catastrophe could be avoided not only by rejecting the anthropocentric culture, but also everything that it has created (modern medicine and agriculture, technology, industrialism). There is much skepticism regarding human nature and the possibility of the voluntary abandonment of anthropocentrism, which could foster the occurrence of a hostile attitude towards the human species and the readiness to eliminate it, at least partially [55].

Moreover, the times when animals were considered to be only tools whose sole purpose was to serve humans have already happened. More and more people are willing to see in animals the beings that, due to their ability to experience su ffering, must be respected and protected, and even have the right to life and unfettered development. Ninety years ago, when industrial production changed farming into agribusiness, the living conditions of breeding animals have dramatically deteriorated. In those who are sensitive to the su ffering of animals, such a state of a ffairs must necessarily cause frustration and outrage, which can easily lead to a desire to punish those who are responsible for that su ffering. Here, as well, it is anthropocentrism (speciesism) that is blamed for that situation, but because of a strong individualistic attitude and a lack of a holistic approach, this "placing blame" is never of a total nature, i.e., it does not encompass the whole species. This is why the response to the evil that is experienced by sentient beings (animals) has to be individual (attacks on particular human individuals).

Can ecological radicalism change its nature or intensity? As it seems, the number of sabotage actions have not significantly changed. Due to a slow overcoming of anthropocentrism, one should instead expect the opposite trend. However, one thing should be noticed—over the past twenty years, radical ecological organizations have constantly broadened the scope of their goals. Nowadays, these organizations do not limit themselves to attacking forest-felling companies, ski resorts, high-voltage power lines, or laboratories where experiments on animals are carried out. More and more often, large corporations, private houses, SUVs, as well as various symbols of capitalism, become the subject of attacks [46]. The anti-capitalist attitude is obviously nothing new among the radical environmentalists and animal-rights activists. It was there before, but open criticism of capitalism and globalization occurred in the late 1990s, especially after the protests in Seattle in the fall of 1999, when people closely associated with anarchism and alter globalism started to have more influence on these movements. For them, the liberation of the earth has become closely linked to the abolition of capitalism and social liberation. The way to achieve that was not a slow reform, but a revolutionary spurt, preceded by mass attacks on the elements of the capitalist system [56]. The actions of the ELF can be comprehended as acts of revolution, not reform. The liberation of the Earth equals the liberation of every one of us [28,57]. Paradoxically, the broadening of the scope of objectives by incorporating the social ones that are specifically human (and hence pro-anthropocentric) can in fact, lead to the intensification of actions, but rather not to their brutalization. Such a situation in the case of environmental groups can even become an ideological safeguard against anti-human activities, which, in the era of the ecological catastrophe and relatively easy access to means of mass destruction, will become more than probable.

The word "jihad" used by many activists should be understood as the "jihad of the sword" but also, and perhaps even above all, as the "jihad of the heart", which is a profound transformation in the way of thinking and feeling, and which must arise in the minds of all monkeywrenchers. It seems that although many interpretations of Islam propagate the intrinsic value of animals [58] and there are even calls for Islamic eco-jihad [59], the above mentioned activists had in mind rather a common perception of the word as a wide-raging fight against the enemy. The actions of destroying machinery and objects that pose a threat to nature are such a fight. It is, however, not only a strategy, but an attempt to reorganize the world; an attempt of introducing an order that initially existed in the world, and which was lost by the people at some moment in time. The destruction of machinery is not violence but the only appropriate and necessary way of restoring these machines to their original form, their true unadulterated nature, which has been brutally taken away from them. Animal-rights radicals speak in a similar vein. In April 1989, the Animal Liberation Front organized a raid on the University of Arizona in Tucson, in the result of which, 1200 animals were liberated, and material losses stemming from the destruction of several buildings that were set on fire amounted to \$250,000. After the action, the activists released a statement in which they claimed that the Arizona raid was conducted as "an act of mercy and compassion for the individual animal victims and also as part of a larger international campaign against the scientific/medical industry's misguided, anti-human, anti-earth, profit-oriented practices of vivisection, bio-technology, and synthetic pharmaceutical research" [60]. It is worth noting that the ALF always considered its sabotage activities to be completely violence-free [61]; violence can occur only in actions involving attacks on living beings capable of feeling joy and sadness. Military-type actions targeting objects used for inflicting suffering to animals are, in their opinion, purely defensive, and cannot be compared to bloody acts of terror.

As we observe emerging risk factors that may affect the future occurrence of public health emergencies, we may not forget the impact of eco-terrorism on the future development of the world. The actions conducted by eco-activists may be isolated but may also extend to a larger magnitude than we may be able to handle, resulting in major incidents and disasters. These actions should be taken into serious considerations, and contingency plans should also include suggestions to mitigate the impact of these actions. Whatever the causes, sabotage, arsons, direct violence, threats, bombs, etc. are all methods used in eco-terrorism. As we label these acts as instruments for terrorists, we may also consider that eco-terrorism might be easier to perform and the enemy may not be as visible as we believe.
