This narrative struck me as a vehicle for the claim made on the bumper sticker regarding how unpopular vegetarianism would become if animals could speak

The interesting point in this narrative is that it raises the question of why human needs are held to be more important than those of nonhuman animals. Barring nonsensical religious claims as to some sort of divinely granted privilege, the only causal explanation is that man is more able to influence his surroundings than the rest of the planet's fauna. This does not yet settle the question, though, as superior ability does not equate to moral rectitude. It seems as though the inability to protest ought to rather generate a protected status for those that could not speak for their own interests, be they animal, plant, or disenfranchised human.

The narrative raises the argument that it is man's ability to object to injustice that has resulted in fewer injustices being commited against man than against other animals. Yet man has regularly made it his mission to remove other men's voices, relegating them to the same status of silent victim. The reality is that we cannot enfranchise animals as directly as we can marginalize human populations as they lack the tools to be their own agents. It is thus encumbent upon humans to be the voice of the silent, yet sentient creatures of our little marble, and understand that preserving biodiversity benefits not only the animals and plants in question, but our own species as a collective. Unfortunately the claim on the bumper sticker is patently false, as animals clearly do speak. As whalesong, canine howls, and pheromonal communications prove, animals can speak, just not in the limited verbal sense that our species has deemed to be the only viable data carrier. Perhaps a less enthnocentric definition of communication and speech would spur a greater interest in the discourses held by our fellow carbon-based life forms, and lead to more amenable interactions between us.