From Zoonosis to Zoopolis

Within just a few weeks, COVID-19 has caused unprecedented lockdowns, the extensive use of emergency powers, shifts in how and who makes decisions, and unforeseen consequences for marginalized and newly marginalized individuals. Political leaders and journalists were quick to blame animals, such as bats and pangolins, as the ones “responsible” for this crisis. These accusations have led to animals being stigmatized globally; in some places, they were burned or otherwise killed by the hundreds. Framing animals as the scapegoats of the Corona crisis, however, is neither useful nor justified. Ultimately, it isn’t animals themselves, but the way in which we treat them that is the true cause of the pandemic. For the first time in history, experts from diverse fields such as has epidemiology, biology, chemistry, physics, and public health have called for a fundamental change in our relationships with animals. However, they do not sufficiently address what this change and our relationships with animals should look like in the future. Drawing on the recent “political turn” in animal ethics, this paper argues that COVID-19 prompts us to begin working to establish a Zoopolis – a shared interspecies society between humans and domesticated animals, and the recognition of wild animals as sovereigns. In doing so, the paper discusses linkages between pandemics and factory farming, structural similarities between human and animal oppression, and opportunities to consider animals in determining the public good, and to work toward a shared interspecies society.

asesinados por cientos. Sin embargo, enmarcar a los animales como chivos expiatorios de la crisis del Corona

Introduction
Within just a few weeks, COVID-19 has caused unprecedented lockdowns, led to the extensive use of emergency powers, shifts in how and who makes decisions, and unforeseen consequences for marginalized and newly marginalized individuals. Political leaders and journalists were quick to blame animals, such as bats and pangolins, as the ones "responsible" for this crisis. As a consequence, these animals were stigmatized globally; in some places, they were burned or otherwise killed by the hundreds. Framing animals as the scapegoats of the Corona crisis, however, is neither useful nor justified. Ultimately, it isn't animals themselves, but the way in which we treat them that is the true cause of the pandemic. This paper argues that the Corona crisis is a wake-up call to reconsider, reframe, and repurpose human-animal relationships, and sketches reasonable scenarios for the future.
I begin by mapping the emergence of COVID-19 and its vast epidemiological and socio-economic consequences around the world, leading to quick and hasty judgments about animals as drivers of the pandemic. While it is true, as the next section argues, that the most widespread and dominant interactions between humans and wild animals (such as through habitat destruction and invasion, sale, experimentation, and consumption), and humans and domesticated animals (notably through factory farming) carry significant risks for the emergence and transmission of pandemics, and for global health, more generally, blaming animals is unjustified. The crux, ultimately, lies in how we treat them.
Going forward, we have two options: sticking to the status quo and accepting pandemics as "our constant companions" for the future, or seizing this crisis as a momentum for change. For the first time in history, as I then show, COVID-19 has led to a concerted effort of experts from diverse fields such as has epidemiology, biology, chemistry, physics, and public health to call for a fundamental change in our relationships with animals -not just locally, but globally. What this change and our relationships with animals should look like in the future, however, is not sufficiently addressed by them. This is where long-held debates in animal ethics and animal studies, more broadly, come into play, which I discuss next. Drawing on the recent "political turn" in animal ethics, this paper argues that COVID-19 prompts us to begin working to establish a Zoopolis -a shared interspecies society between humans and domesticated animals, and the recognition of wild animals as sovereigns. This paper does not offer a solid proposal detailing all the changes in legal, social, political, and economic structures needed to achieve a Zoopolis. Instead, it shows that a Zoopolis can become a concrete political and legal undertaking at this significant moment of rupture that the Corona crisis represents. Incorporating animal agency into this proposal, as I argue in closing, is critical to its success.

On Pandemics and their Emergence
Like a scourge out of nowhere, in early 2020, COVID-19 has taken mankind by surprise since and apparently brought it to its knees, within just a few weeks. That an epidemic would arise, escalate into a pandemic and cause a global health crisis was unthinkable for many. Much less did we expect that two-thirds of the world's population would be banished to their own four walls, that their consumption would be drastically curtailed, 1 that airtraffic came to a standstill, 2 that the world's strongest public health systems would collapse, 3 parliamentary sessions would be broken off, 4 extensive emergency powers would be claimed, 5 borders would be closed, 6 the global labour market would come to a standstill, 7 and one of the biggest recessions would follow. 8 COVID-19, also known as the Coronavirus, and its apocalyptic effects, in short, is "the stuff movies are made of." As these events arose, the world was swiftly searching for culprits. Headlines like "the pangolin is to blame" 9 or "bats are responsible for the spread of COVID-19" 10 spread like a wildfire. Political leaders, too, were quick to blame animals as the ones "responsible for this crisis." 11 As a consequence, these animals were stigmatized globally; in some places, they were burned or otherwise killed by the hundreds. In China, residents asked that hibernating bats in or near their homes be destroyed. 12 In Indonesia, hundreds of fruit bats were confiscated by the authorities and burned in their cages. 13 In North-Western Peru, 300 bats were burned in their caves because local residents mistakenly believed that the animals had transmitted the Coronavirus, which was claiming its first human lives in Peru at the time. Similarly, residents in San Francisco asked for information on how to catch and kill bats to stop the spread of the virus. 14 However, denouncing individual animals -be it the bat or the pangolin -as scapegoats for the Corona crisis is neither useful nor justified. Ultimately, it is not the bats or pangolins that are the cause of the pandemic, but the way we treat them. 15 This might seem unnecessarily pedantic to some since in either scenario, bats and pangolins are involved. However, allocating responsibility correctly is needed in order to find out how to contain the spread of COVID-19, in order to find a vaccine, and, not least, to prevent the outbreak of future pandemics. In addition, the question of blame (and answers thereto) is decisive in determining the existence and the kinds of relationships between us and other animals going forward. 16   In the case of Corona, scientists found viruses very similar to COVID-19 in Chinese horseshoe bats. 18 Normally, these viruses remain in the body of the bats, which in turn remain within their ecosystems without harming humans. 19 The risk of inter-species transmission only arises when humans enter the habitats of bats, use them for medical or nutritional purposes or bring them into contact with other animals, which in turn act as intermediate hosts. 20 This is probably what happened at the Wuhan wet market in China, where, as experts assume, COVID-19 broke out late last year. When bats are brought into stressful situations, such as when they are being hunted or sold alive, they react with symptoms similar to a cold in humans. Their bodies produce viruses, which settle in saliva, urine, and faeces and are then presumably transmitted to Malayan pangolins, which were also sold on the market in Wuhan. 21 If we then get too close to these animals, which likely happened at a local wet market in Wuhan, the outbreak of a zoonosis is the logical consequence. 22 If we add global production and supply chains and increased cross-border traffic to this, an epidemic, i.e., a locally or regionally infectious disease, can easily grow into a pandemic, i.e., an infectious disease that threatens a large part of the world's population, in just a few days and -as new research shows -sometimes even just a few hours. 23

Be it Domesticated Animals or Wild Animals: The Crux Lies in how We Treat Them
COVID-19 is by no means an outlier. Think of zoonoses like the "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome" (SARS), which probably originated in 2003; the "Middle-East Respiratory Syndrome" (MERS), which was discovered in 2012, and avian influenza, such as the H5N1 virus, which has become a common outbreak in poultry production since 1997. In these cases, too, it is not camels, dromedaries, or hens that can or should be blamed for the emergence and spread of zoonoses. It isn't animals themselves, but the way in which we treat them that is the true cause of the pandemic. 24 In the case of wild animals, we invade their habitats, pack them up with conspecifics, or other wild animals in a very small space, offer them for sale, experiment on them, eat them, or use them as artefacts or trophies. 25 However, these problems also occur in intensive livestock farming. Animals that are used for agricultural purposes are bred for to increase body mass, improved for maximum performance and kept side by side, under each other and on top of each other for weeks, sometimes even years. 26 This is the case not just in large agricultural states like the US, where CAFOs emerged, 27 but even in those countries that are rated to have some of the best protections in the world. The Animal Protection Index, a ranking system established by the NGO World Animal Protection (WAP), ranks 50 countries around the world according to their animal welfare policy and legislation. 28 It gives Switzerland a "B" in the range from As to Gs, with B being the highest rank yet accorded to states. 29 This is because Switzerland recognizes animal sentience and prohibits 18 Generally speaking, bats are considered to be major hosts for alphacoronaviruses and betacoronaviruses, due to their extremely complex and highly-developed immune system: DREXLER, J.F. -CORMAN, V.M. -DROSTEN, C., Ecology, Evolution and Classification of Bat Coronaviruses in the Aftermath of SARS. Antiviral Research, 101 (2014), 45-56. 19 Bats have an increased metabolism and higher body temperatures than most mammals, which is especially useful during flight and might have enhanced their immune-system, from an evolutionary point of view. This, as experts suspect, is a highly effective "virus-  animal suffering, has established animal welfare legislation in place, directs government bodies to abide by animal protection, and supports international animal welfare standards. 30 However even in Switzerland, on one farm alone, one can keep up to 300 calves, 2,000 pigs, 18,000 laying hens, or 27,000 broilers. 31 On the factory farm, animals live a life in their own and others' excrements and they are muted by an environment where dead young animals are thrown into the garbage can. 32 Each and every one of them is on the brink of death. Broiler producers, for example, build 30-40% mortality into their profitability calculations. 33 Those animals who hold out until slaughter have little or no opportunity to move or exercise their needs during their short lives. Extreme confinement causes them to suffer from chronic, production-related diseases, including liver abscesses, mastitis, ascites, lameness, and uterine prolapse, 34 which is often accompanied by feelings of aggression, frustration, mourning, and lethal stress syndromes. 35 It is precisely these concentrated factory farms that operate as breeding grounds for novel pathogens: if animals are crammed together in a confined space, this causes them to suffer permanent stress, which weakens their immune system and increases the risk of viral transmission. 36 The more generations of viruses are present in one area -which is the case in industrial agriculture -the more likely they are to undergo mutation. 37 These are optimal conditions for viruses to develop human-specific characteristics due to contact with humans, and to soon grow into a pandemic. 38 According to a new report by the Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (FAIRR) initiative, as many as 70% of the world's largest listed meat, fish, and dairy companies are demonstrably exposed to a "high risk" of promoting future zoonotic pandemics. 39 The steady increase in industrial livestock farming poses a global risk to public health in other ways, notably through its high contribution to antimicrobial resistance. In all regions of the world, bacteria, parasites, viruses, and fungi are becoming increasingly resistant to antimicrobial drugs, largely due to the use of antibiotics in the livestock industry (such as penicillin and tetracyclines). 40 And this is true regardless of whether antibiotics are used for growth promotion or simply to keep animals alive in adverse conditions. 41 Due to the ever-increasing demand for animal products, the total consumption of antibiotics in animal feed production is expected to increase by almost 70% between 2010 and 2030. 42 Today, 700'000 people die from December 2020]. 30 Ibid. 31 Verordnung über Höchstbestände in der Fleisch-und Eierproduktion (Höchstbestandesverordnung, HBV). SR 916.344. 23 October 2013. Art. 2 para. 1 (Switz.). Among other things, it is also permitted to keep up to 17 chickens per square metre and up to ten pigs weighing 100 kg on an area identical in size with a parking lot. In addition, the tethering of dairy cows is generally permitted in Switzerland. 32 Footage showing that this is also the case in Switzerland, the country with allegedly one of the best animal laws in the world, is  (2015), 5649-5654. 41 In Switzerland, for example, the use of antibiotics for growth is prohibited. Broadly speaking, the country thus follows an "organic model." As most animals are born into adverse conditions and separated from their mothers in the first few hours after birth, they're immunologically weakened and, consequently, often develop diseases that have to be treated by antibiotics. This is the case, for example, in calves, many of whom end up suffering from respiratory diseases: BEER, G. antimicrobial-resistant diseases each year. And should the current trend continue, diseases caused by drugresistant microbes are expected kill up to 9.5 million people per year by 2050 -which is more than current cancer-deaths. 43

Science Demands Change -For the Sake of Public Health and the Environment
The global risks of antibiotic resistance have long been known. Today, we also know that the COVID-19 pandemic scenario was already known to public officials in 2013 44 and that its reappearance and the outbreak of future pandemics are very likely. 45 In other words, pandemics will increase in frequency and spread further unless and only if we are willing to fundamentally change how we treat animals. Science, at least, is in agreement on this. In May 2020, over 120 scientists from Central Europe addressed the public in an open letter. 46 The research group from the fields of epidemiology, biology, and chemistry -including Nobel Prize winner Jacques Dubochet from the University of Lausanne -agrees that the next pandemic is foreseeable and that it is therefore time to act. The group called on politicians to respond immediately to the underlying causes of the pandemic with a view to preventing a second COVID wave and the emergence of a new pandemic. 47 In order to achieve these goals, policy should act systemically, taking into account our needs as well as the relationships between people and with all living organisms. 48 The research group's call resonates with what global research leaders are calling for ever since COVID-19 broke out: problematic human-animal interactions such as those in Wuhan should be restricted or prohibited, the clearing of rainforests and the invasion of animal territory by humans should be stopped, and nature should not be destroyed but regenerated. 49 Pandemics are just one facet of larger, global changes. Equally worrying, according to the 120-strong research group from Central Europe, is the massive extinction of species caused by changes in the natural environment, loss of habitat, depletion of resources, widespread air, water and soil pollution, and climate change. Humanity today is confronted with the consequences, "résultant de ses choix économiques et politiques." 50 So it is economic and political decisions that we ourselves have made that have led us into this impasse.
The demand that we ought to rethink our relations with animals also applies to farmed animals. In an open letter from 2017, more than 200 scientists urged the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) to recognize and address factory farming as a public health challenge. 51 Science should devote its energies to documenting and publishing the damage that animal agriculture has done to the health of humans, animals, and the planet. The WHO must play its part, in particular by publicly acknowledging the damage that industrial farming causes to global health. Specifically, the next Director-General "should take necessary steps to limit the expansion of industrial animal farming and encourage dietary recommendations that reduce meat consumption." 52

Pandemics: Global Origins, Global Action
As we discuss these issues, it is important to stress that measures taken to reorient and reconstruct human-animal relations must be geared toward global change. Distinctions between "The West and the Rest" and the "Global North/Global South" must be questioned and critically evaluated. Particularly in the advent of the Corona crisis, stakeholders repeatedly referred to the Coronavirus as the "Chinese virus" or the "Wuhan virus." Donald Trump, for example, crossed out the word "Corona" in his notes for a press conference at the Livestock Production. USDA Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report (2015) White house in mid-March, and replaced it with "Chinese." 53 This terminology is ruthless and irresponsibleconsidering how many people were discriminated against or even attacked as a result. 54 It also contradicts the best practices for naming diseases, as defined by the WHO in 2015. 55 To call COVID-19, which has spread worldwide, a "Chinese virus" is also absurd. Pathogens do not respect national borders; they are "not Spanish or Chinese." 56 What is more important, however, is the fact that these very same dynamics happens "at home." Some of the deadliest viruses emerged from European and North American chicken and pig factories. These include the Spanish flu (one of the deadliest (bird) flus, which in 1918 affected one third of the world population), 57 the swine flu (also known as "new flu", which in 2009 infected around 20% of the world's population), 58 as well as several strains of bird flu and BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy). 59 Just like in Wuhan, tens of thousands of animals live crammed in a very small space -genetically standardized, immunocompromised, and drugged. Like COVID-19, these new viruses are spreading rapidly thanks to global production and supply chains and high levels of mobility of the industry and among the population. There is also a problematic intersection here: Slaughterhouses that had to remain open during the Corona crisis have literally become Corona hotspots. Be it Smithfield plants in Sioux Falls, Tyson facilities in Iowa, or Tönnies factories in Germany: The percentage of people infected with the virus continuously fluctuated between 40 and 60%. 60 So, human suffering and oppression and animal suffering and oppression often go hand in hand; in fact, they are so interconnected that they mutually reinforce each other. 61

Pandemics Can Be Prevented: Our Relations with Animals Will Be Decisive
In light of these developments, we have two options for dealing with the current crisis: Either we do not change our individual and collective behaviour and accept pandemics as "our constant companions" going forward. In that case, however, we must be prepared to accept its consequences on health policy and the economy; and -more importantly -we must be prepared to be held accountable for the immense suffering that we thereby cause.
This, however, is not the only route to go. A second possibility is to view the current crisis as an opportunity: Here and now we have the chance to tackle the Corona crisis proactively through government regulation, corporate action, and changes in individual behaviour. What these steps must look like and what the precise measures will be, must be democratically determined, 62 informed by the highest scientific 53 BOTSFORD, J., Tweet on Twitter. Twitter, 19 March 2020. Webpage: https://twitter.com/jabinbotsford/status/1240701140141879298 [Retrieved 7 December 2020]. 54 On 1 February 2020, for example, a man in Los Angeles said that Chinese people were "disgusting" and addressed his comments to a Thai-American woman. One day later in New York, an Asian woman wearing a face mask was attacked by a man who called her a "sick b*": CHIU . 62 These relations can of course be sketched by academia, proposals fleshed out, and benefits and downsides anticipated, but the decision ultimately lies in the hands of the demos. Whether and how animals should also be part of the demos is increasingly examined by animal studies scholars. For example, in "When Animals Speak," Eva Meijer, provides fascinating, real-world examples of animals communicating and acting in political ways and encourages us to rethink our relations with other animals, to the extent that their voices should be taken into account as the starting point for a new interspecies democracy: MEIJER, E., When Animals Speak: Toward standards. By no means does this paper claim to have the answers available to sketch which legal, social, political, and economic structures need to be changed and how this should be done. However, what is clear is that in the debate about necessary changes and transformations, human-animal relationships will play a significant role. It is not only bats that have interest in not being treated the same way as before. The Corona crisis has made it clear that we, too, have an interest in rethinking our relationship with the bats and with animals, more generally. But how should this be done? What role should animals play in world so heavily determined, indeed, governed by humans? Should the interests of animals be considered? How so? And should this be done for our sake or for the sake of the animals?
In animal ethics and animal studies, more broadly, scholars have been debating the "right way to treat animals" for decades. Starting in the 1980s, first-generation animal ethicists like Peter Singer have advocated for the better treatment of animals, which, depending on the country, led, for example, to the abolition of tethering, larger cages, or an opportunity for animals to access more space and exercise. 63 Abolitionism, which was decisively influenced by the US-American professor Gary Francione, criticizes this: Aspirations to improve animal husbandry only legitimize animal husbandry; thereby, we accept that animals can routinely be used, confined, and killed, and this, in turn, hinders significant progress for animals. 64 Abolitionism instead demands that all sentient beings should have the fundamental right not to be treated as property of others, and therefore generally rejects any and all uses of animals. One critical demand that flows from this view of justice is that all relationships between humans and animals be severed: humans must live amongst humans, animals must live amongst animals, and any form of contact or interaction must be avoided, resulting in what Acampora calls "species apartheid." 65 Since contact with animals is critical in leading to the emergence of infectious zoonotic diseases, 66 a precautionary approach would seem to require that we end any and all relations with animals to avoid the possibility of future pandemics. Pandemics thus seem strengthen the call for abolitionism.
Insofar as wild animals are concerned, this might indeed be true. 67 However, concerning domesticated animals, things are more complex and require a more nuanced evaluation. Mainstream demands of abolitionism do not lead abolitionists to advocate for the peaceful coexistence of humans and domesticated animals -even assuming we lived separated from each other and maintained no contact. They argue that animals that have been bred for human purposes find themselves in a world so thoroughly dominated by humans, either directly (e.g., through interventions or by occupying land) or indirectly (e.g., through anthropogenic climate change), that there is no way of avoiding closeness and contact between us. We are inevitably prejudiced against animals and have a history of acting in our own interests, therefore, according to Francione, domesticated animals should gradually become extinct. 68 This is where "the third-generation of animal ethics" comes in, which Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka heralded with their book Zoopolis. 69 They criticize that the end of the exploitation of animals must necessarily lead to the end of all our relationships with animals, and accuse abolitionism of "extinctionism." 70 Past injustices are not remedied by eliminating their victims. If we were to do this, we'd only reinforce the original injustice, and thereby create new forms of injustice. Our goal must not be to abolish our relationships with animals, but to transform unjust relationships into more just ones. 71 On this basis, Donaldson and Kymlicka argue that domesticated animals must be recognized as members of our society. As such, they have the right to be here, to live their lives as they see fit, to be adequately protected and cared for, and to be considered in the determination of the common good. 72 What does this mean for animals currently living in farmed conditions? First of all, in agreement with some of the demands of abolitionism, breeding animals for farming purposes and keeping them to satisfy human interests (such as culinary pleasure) would not be allowed anymore. Second, in disagreement with abolitionism, we cannot unilaterally determine that domesticated animals must die out -even if this seems to be (at least on the face) the most efficient way to reduce and prevent zoonoses -because doing so is inherently unjust to animals and morally impermissible. Doing domesticated animals justice requires acknowledging that they deserve their own place in this world and are part of an interspecies society that they have a right to be part of (if they so wish) and co-determine. Chances are high that they would not choose to live by the thousands in cramped conditions, as in conditions of factory farming. It is instead likely that they would choose to live in smaller groups -with or without humans -, occupy more space, explore their environments and move around, be able to eat healthier feed, experience fewer stressors, nurture their own relations, and hence not be reliant on antibiotics. 73 With this, the conditions for the emergence and transmission of a new virus are practically eradicated. 74 Working toward a just interspecies society with domesticated animals, as sketched in Zoopolis, is therefore epidemiologically sound and more just.
Wild animals, on the other hand, can organise themselves and form their own community, as Donaldson and Kymlicka argue. As such, wild animals enjoy sovereignty rights. Their relationship to us is something akin to relations between nations, and the principles governing this relation are thus something akin to "international law between the species." 75 From this follows, according to Donaldson and Kymlicka, that wild animals enjoy territorial rights; human intervention is generally prohibited; indirect harm, caused, for example, by environmental pollution or anthropogenic climate change, must be compensated. 76 If we followed these proposals, notably by respecting the habitat of wild animals as sovereign territories, we would be in a much better position to prevent future zoonotic diseases.

Towards "Animal Agency" and Joint Decision-Making
Clearly, following through on these demands will necessitate a paradigm change. Going forward, the question of what (if any) relations we should maintain with animals, however, should not be unilaterally determined by us. Today, we are socially and culturally accustomed to ignore animals, to stigmatize them as "dumb," and consider them as being "controlled by their genes." 77 The majority of human-animal interactions today occur between domesticated animals used for agricultural purposes and people who ensure processes that serve purely human interests, such as rapid slaughter, for example. In these processes, the animals themselves, their desires, intentions and life plans do not matter. Animals who refuse to accept these processes by resisting and making use of their voice -verbally or non-verbally -are not heard; indeed, they are regularly silenced. 78 And without law and politics making sure these voices are heard, the prospects for change are slim. 79 Recognising that animals can and want to exercise agency -in our personal relationships with them, but also on a political level -is an important step toward re-constituting our relationships with them. 80 Animals have their own voice, they act autonomously and usually express their likes and dislikes quite clearly. Think, for example, of the singing, chirping, screaming, mooing, running, hiding, defying, turning their backs, defending themselves, standing up for others, and many other ways in which animals exercise "embodied" communication. 81 We must learn to recognize these voices instead of patronizing animals and making sweeping decisions for and about them.
What rights for animals and more just relationships with them could or should look like in concrete terms is being studied by a growing number of scientists from various disciplines. 82 One thing is clear though: up until today, we have spent far too little energy and time thinking about ways to make relationships with animals more just and fair. And we have never asked ourselves the very difficult questions, such as: What exactly do animals want? Are just, short-or long-term relationships between us possible? What types of human-animal relationships are acceptable to them? How can we make sure that we are not using the animals' interests as an excuse to advance our own, but that instead we are truly working toward relationships that empower us both?

Conclusion
As we were painfully reminded by COVID-19, the interests and well-being of animals and humans are not in competition with each other, but in mutual dependence, and can therefore only be addressed and solved in tandem. If we acknowledge these interrelationships and if we are prepared to fundamentally rethink and change how we approach and interact with animals, much can be achieved. The Corona crisis signifies a moment of rupture where new socio-political configurations can emerge. This momentum of change should be seized to begin working to establish a Zoopolis -a shared interspecies society between humans and domesticated animals, and the recognition of wild animals as sovereigns. A future without pandemics is only one positive aspect of this effort to reconsider, reframe, and repurpose human-animal relationships. Interspecies justice is the other.