postures. It had begun in particular with the illegalization of utilizing certain privileged sets of life forms as food. One popular expression was that it was wrong to “enslave animals for food purposes” which slogan indicated a confusion of slavery with animal husbandry, two quite disparate institutions, and was not regarded as requiring any plausible explanation, defense, or justification. Shortly thereafter it was pointed out by botanically sensitive individuals that vegetable matter, too, was alive, and might well have some dim sort of consciousness. Various bills intended to outlaw the enslavement of vegetables, fruit trees, and such, for food purposes just failed of enactment in certain areas, after lengthy expert testimony was taken from the scientific community on the minimalistic, if that, nature of the mentality of these various plants, and such, as though the mere minimality of the mentality were at all germane to the question. Where the bills were enacted they tended to be popularly ignored, though some individuals, as a moral duty, starved to death, attended by widespread publicity in the press, rousing general sympathy but in the end accomplishing little with respect to altering the ultimate fate of most vegetables. It had also been observed that the meaning of the command, “Thou shalt not kill,” had only recently been discovered, after several thousand years. It was noted that the original community to which this directive had been issued and which, presumably, would have been in an ideal position to understand it, had failed to grasp its import. Several members of that community, for example, had been shepherds, and others had been farmers and vintagers, and such. Too, one supposes that some amongst them would not have been above angling. Also, they seem to have had few scruples about putting tribal enemies to the sword, and, indeed, in certain cases, seem to have undertaken it as a duty incumbent upon them in virtue of obedience to the will of the very entity which had issued the original injunction pertaining to killing, an anomaly, at best. The injunction against killing would apply, of course, not only to animals and plants which might be utilized for food, but, naturally, more generally. An obvious, even painfully so, life form, was the insect. Insecticides, of course, were banned. A number of other accommodations were also in order, such as screened bulbs to prevent injury to flying insects and special shoes designed both for comfort and support and reduction of the number of contact surfaces with the ground, the latter to minimize the danger to crawling insects. Children were warned to be specially watchful not to step on six-legged brothers, and so on. These were, of course, negative precautions. The next logical step was insect welfare, putting out food for them, encouraging their breeding, etc. In some communities of the more enlightened variety special walkways were designed to protect individuals from hovering swarms. Insect welfarists often tore down these screens, as artificial barriers. Some individuals would wander about with serene smiles upon their countenances, their bodies swarming with insects, providing the little fellows with harbors and refuges, and nourishing them even, depending upon the variety, with their own blood. Whereas the saintliness of these individuals was readily admitted by the community at large, it must be admitted that their example, however inspiring, seldom elicited, or was honored by, emulation. Whereas it was true that a certain amount of edible material could be synthesized from certain chemicals these processes tended to be complex and expensive. Aside from questions of the nutritional equivalence of this material, if this was thought important, which still remained controversial, there were additional problems connected with its palatability, which might be ignored, and its long-term side effects which did not yet seem to be fully understood. But this sort of thing was not practical economically for most individuals, and of those to whom it was economically practical, few seemed to be interested in it. Most would make do with some forms of mashes and pulps. It might be added, for what it is worth, that various species of animals which had hitherto been enslaved, if one may so speak, for certain values or products, such as eggs, fur, or meat, had now lapsed into extinction. Naturally the enslavement of animals such as dogs, cats, tropical fish, torgos, inwits, and canaries was also outlawed. On several worlds these animals, too, were now extinct. Happily they survived on others. A further natural development, earlier mentioned, was the extension of the franchise