Transcript
Speaker: Hello and welcome back to another episode of the Debatable Discussions podcast.
Speaker: So today we will be talking about animal rights and animal ethics.
Speaker: And the podcast today will be split into sort of three main sections.
Speaker: So firstly, we're going to be tackling that big and important question of should we all be vegan?
Speaker: Secondly, we'll sort of delve into Justin Poil on their protests.
Speaker: And thirdly, we're going to talk about how humans are different to animals, such as consciousness.
Speaker: Yes.
Speaker: So I think, you know, first question, John, very big, obviously, should we be vegan?
Speaker: I think very important caveat to say that we are both meat eaters.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: and you know most of the population are also meat eaters but there is a growing you know concern both from an environmental perspective and as well from a moral perspective of people who think we probably should not be meat eaters we should be vegetarian or vegans so i want to ask you first you know what do you think about this should we be vegan
Speaker: So personally, I don't think we should be vegan.
Speaker: I can understand why some people believe they should be vegan, because in fairness, there are some convincing arguments to being vegan.
Speaker: So for example, you've got environmental veganism, which is surrounding things like climate change, which is surrounding things like climate change, basically, and carbon emissions.
Speaker: You've got the very convincing moral argument from Australian philosopher Peter Singer.
Speaker: So Peter Singer views that we all should be vegan.
Speaker: He's got a few exceptions, however, around things sort of like eggs.
Speaker: So chickens produce eggs, so we should be able to eat the eggs.
Speaker: But he believes that as animals have a moral capacity, they can feel emotions like humans do, so they can feel suffering.
Speaker: So it is immoral to cause suffering to an animal for us to eat it.
Speaker: However, I don't really believe that we should be vegan though.
Speaker: I believe that eating meat, it occurs in nature.
Speaker: If you look in nature, you're going to see lions eating sort of gazelles perhaps, whatever occur, whatever wildlife there is in those deserts or grasslands.
Speaker: So eating meat is a natural thing that occurs in nature.
Speaker: So clearly by that, it's a natural part of life.
Speaker: And secondly, the tastes principle.
Speaker: So this deserves far more validity than we give it.
Speaker: But, you know, people chew gum because it tastes good, but you don't need to chew gum.
Speaker: Likewise with meat.
Speaker: You don't need to eat meat, but it tastes good.
Speaker: So surely we should eat it.
Speaker: So, Diane, what do you think then perhaps about eating meat?
Speaker: Where do you stand on it?
Speaker: I mean, I'm a meat eater.
Speaker: I'm...
Speaker: I get the moral argument and to be honest, I understand it.
Speaker: I accept the moral argument that frankly, eating meat is probably wrong.
Speaker: However, as you said, John, the taste principle, it's very, very difficult to stop eating meat, I think.
Speaker: And especially because our age is frankly an extra part of life.
Speaker: It's very difficult to get.
Speaker: the right proteins and the right nutrients otherwise.
Speaker: And they also keep a balanced diet is probably more important.
Speaker: But I just want to talk about, you know, the moral principle that Peter Singer has for a bit longer.
Speaker: Because I think that is really the big, the big question here.
Speaker: So you said that it happens in nature, but I don't think that's a,
Speaker: compelling enough reason to eat meat because a lot of stuff happens in nature that perhaps we'd agree is wrong.
Speaker: Killing between species, we'd agree that's wrong, I think.
Speaker: I think the audience would also agree it's wrong.
Speaker: But I don't know, do you want to explore that a bit more?
Speaker: Yeah, so sort of go into Peter Singer's argument as well.
Speaker: Peter Singer's argument, it sort of mainly revolves around things like
Speaker: keeping chickens, overcrowding chickens in cages.
Speaker: A lot of his arguments revolve around things like animal cruelty,
Speaker: And so he says you're causing suffering to animals in order to be able to eat them in that way.
Speaker: So I think that's the heart of his argument.
Speaker: And I totally agree with that.
Speaker: I mean, I do think it is wrong to keep animals in cruel and unfair conditions like that.
Speaker: And then to basically exploit them for human eating.
Speaker: But then I don't think there's any issue if, for example, a cow is about to die and you eat its meat.
Speaker: But by me sort of referring to eat meat naturally occurs in nature, I mean that killing animals, as sad as it is, does effectively occur in nature because animals need to eat other meat for their own survival.
Speaker: And so I do think that, yes, it is brutal, but, you know, it's part of life.
Speaker: Life and death happens.
Speaker: and it happens in nature to other animals for their own survival.
Speaker: So I don't think it's that bad to sort of effectively eat animals.
Speaker: I think as long as you keep them in fair conditions, which aren't exploiting them, then I do think it is acceptable to eat them.
Speaker: But then it is a bit of a touchy argument.
Speaker: What do you think, Diane?
Speaker: I agree with you.
Speaker: I think the main problem a lot of people have from a moral standpoint is, as you've said, you know, very cruel farms and just
Speaker: exploitation of animals to a degree that is just unbelievable.
Speaker: But I think if you have an ethically grown animal, right, you know, free range chicken, for example, I don't, I don't also don't see that big of an issue eating it.
Speaker: I mean, we are fortunately the apex predator, which, you know, gives us some might say, give us the right
Speaker: to eat meat because we are the apex predator and in this, in this circle of life, us eating meat is an important part of the, you know, the planet's ecosystem biologically.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: I agree with you there.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: I think, you know, there's also another concern a lot of people have and I think, you know, we'll get, we'll get onto this shortly, the environmentalists who,
Speaker: probably would have us stop eating cows due to methane production.
Speaker: Now, I do fully get this argument.
Speaker: I mean, it's a reality, it's a scientific fact that cows release methane.
Speaker: It's also a fact that climate change is happening and we need to be on top of it as soon as we can.
Speaker: But at the same time, I think us reducing our quantity of beef, yes,
Speaker: I don't have a problem with that.
Speaker: But I think not eating any beef at all again, that would prove to be probably disadvantageous, I'd say, for the ecosystem.
Speaker: I don't think we quite know enough about how it'd affect the ecosystem if we just stop eating meat from cows.
Speaker: Yeah, I agree with you there.
Speaker: I mean, to be brutally honest, as you said there, we don't know.
Speaker: People say, you know, it's a very oftenly said argument that if we just stopped eating meat tomorrow, the climate change, the effects of that would get better.
Speaker: But I don't necessarily, I'm not utterly convinced like you are, Diane, by that argument, because we just don't know.
Speaker: I remember from GCSE Biologist, I'm sure you do, you can't really understand the food chain or you can't really expect what's going to happen when you take bits out or put bits in.
Speaker: And you'll know more about that as a biologist.
Speaker: But you can't really understand the food chain.
Speaker: Yeah, I agree with you.
Speaker: I think also, especially in one that's so complex,
Speaker: Because it's not one on paper.
Speaker: One on paper is quite easy, but there's a lot of variables and a lot of stuff that does not get accounted for on paper and therefore would make this even more hard to predict.
Speaker: Yes, but I think, I mean, I totally agree with you.
Speaker: However, just thinking about it, I mean, obviously do you think we should eat cattle?
Speaker: And we don't know the impact.
Speaker: However, I always, in the back of my mind lingering, I do sort of, you know, as you believe, there is an undeniable fact that cattle produces quite a large amount of global carbon emissions.
Speaker: So it is actually 16.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions that are emitted from cattle.
Speaker: so yes um it would have an impact um you know yes it would probably have a better environmental impact if we just stopped eating cattle but then we just don't really understand the effect though anyway do we as you previously said yeah i agree and you know there's there's 79 million vegans on this planet who yeah you know people are vegan for different reasons i know people who are vegan because of
Speaker: environmental factors other people just feel sorry for the animals i think if you know if you genuinely feel very sorry for the animals and you cannot eat them fine you know i can't tell you anything about that i think that's every person's decision but i also want to explore a secondary part to that so you know are we actually that different to animals so you know are animals conscious would you say
Speaker: So, yes, this is a very big, quite loaded question.
Speaker: So I think first you've sort of got to define consciousness and just a quick Google search will basically tell you sort of what you believe it is in fairness.
Speaker: And that is a simple awareness that includes perception and emotion.
Speaker: So that is what you'd say primary consciousness is.
Speaker: And then secondary sort of builds on that and it depends on and includes such features as self-reflective awareness, abstract thinking, volition and metacognition.
Speaker: So you would assign primary consciousness to animals.
Speaker: Most scientists would say they have it because that's just simple awareness that includes perception and emotion.
Speaker: So it's things like animals can feel pain.
Speaker: chemicals in animals' heads may be able to make them feel sadness.
Speaker: And awareness, yes, animals do have a level of awareness.
Speaker: But I don't think it has developed as human consciousness, which is secondary consciousness.
Speaker: So that would be sort of self-reflectiveness.
Speaker: I don't think animals have that level of consciousness, but I think they've got a degree of it.
Speaker: What do you think, Dan?
Speaker: I think it's very important here.
Speaker: I'm going to go to the definition of Yuval Noah Harari here when it comes to consciousness in his book Sapiens, where basically he says there's two types of things that we often get wrong.
Speaker: Intelligence, which is the ability to solve problems.
Speaker: So I would say, are dogs intelligent?
Speaker: Probably yes.
Speaker: Are animals intelligent?
Speaker: Yes, because they're hungry.
Speaker: So they solve their problem by hunting or eating food.
Speaker: If you put a bowl in front of a dog with more food and then a bowl with less food, the dog will go to the one with more food.
Speaker: So the dog does have some intelligence.
Speaker: But consciousness is the ability to feel emotions, as you've said.
Speaker: And I think this is debated within science is, are they
Speaker: fully able to feel emotions?
Speaker: Because it's very difficult.
Speaker: I cannot tell if you're able to feel emotions unless I do a functional MRI on you.
Speaker: But that's also, again, a bit tricky.
Speaker: So it's very difficult, I think, to get to a definitive answer of are animals actually fully conscious?
Speaker: Because...
Speaker: I cannot know what my dog or, you know, my cat feels.
Speaker: I can't tell if it feels anything.
Speaker: I can tell that it has a problem and it solves it.
Speaker: I can tell that, you know.
Speaker: But I can't actually tell, is it happy?
Speaker: Is it happy when it's eating?
Speaker: Is it happy when, you know, I get back home?
Speaker: I mean, I think obviously this question is hard because everyone has different definitions of consciousness and sort of levels of consciousness.
Speaker: I think emotions just are, scientists do widely believe that animals show emotion.
Speaker: So for the example of a dog you gave, I think you would say a dog can probably feel happiness.
Speaker: You would detect that because isn't it, I mean, I don't have a dog, but the wagging of a dog's tail.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Doesn't,
Speaker: Isn't that indicative of like happiness or joy or something in that realm?
Speaker: I mean, we believe that.
Speaker: So I think there's definitely ways of animals feeling emotions, such as pain is a common one which animals can feel.
Speaker: But then I just don't think they can feel the complexity and the same range of emotions that a human can feel.
Speaker: And for that reason, I believe that animals have a level of consciousness, but their level of consciousness is simply just not as high or even their level of consciousness isn't to the same extent as the level of consciousness that a human feels.
Speaker: So, I mean, I think going back to the question, that is the main difference between humans and animals.
Speaker: And that is, we are effectively more quote unquote developed creatures because we have a high level of consciousness.
Speaker: Yeah, I think I agree with you there.
Speaker: I think also another thing that I think we have to mention here is a lot of the animal kingdom, you know, it's quite diverse in the level of consciousness by itself.
Speaker: So there's a different level of consciousness between a dog and a snail, right?
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: There's a different level of consciousness between a human and
Speaker: A dog.
Speaker: So, you know, we're animals as well, but what actually gives us this level of consciousness is hard to define.
Speaker: Probably it's us out competing each other, some would say, but I also want to get onto another question here.
Speaker: And, you know, here we go back to Peter Singer on why we shouldn't eat meat.
Speaker: Do you think plants are conscious as well, or do you think they're not?
Speaker: And how can we prove that?
Speaker: Ooh, I think that's quite a good question.
Speaker: I think it's like animals.
Speaker: I mean, I think... So...
Speaker: I think plants probably do have a level of consciousness, which is really, really far below animals.
Speaker: You think so?
Speaker: So, yeah, because I mean, and I've got no sort of evidence for this, but I think plants will have a level of consciousness.
Speaker: So there is actually, it has actually been proved sort of for things like phototropisms.
Speaker: So they're kind of conscious with that understanding of light.
Speaker: However, I just don't think their consciousness is as complex, as detailed as an animal, let alone a human's consciousness.
Speaker: And for that reason, because of their lack of consciousness to, let's say, feel emotions.
Speaker: For example, I don't believe a plant can feel emotions.
Speaker: That's why I believe it's fine to eat them.
Speaker: I mean, what do you think, Diane?
Speaker: It's a pretty loaded question.
Speaker: I think this is probably harder than most people think because...
Speaker: In some animals, like snails, for example, I don't know why I'm going back to the snail example, but I am.
Speaker: So, like snails, I think it's impossible, frankly, for me to be able to tell, is a snake feeling happy or not?
Speaker: Right, you know?
Speaker: Is an ant, is a... And it's almost as impossible, if not more impossible for me to be able to tell, is this fig tree feeling happy?
Speaker: I think that's also, you can't tell.
Speaker: But then this brings the question in, if we can't tell, should we assume it's conscious and say we're not going to, you know, what are we going to do?
Speaker: Or should we say it's not conscious with the risk of actually being conscious and feeling the pain of us chewing on?
Speaker: Well, I think the thing is, though, is that, as I already said, it's that plants, animals and humans, we have varying levels of consciousness.
Speaker: With humans at the top, animals beneath, and plants quite far beneath that.
Speaker: But how do you know?
Speaker: How can we know?
Speaker: Well, there's been experiments, for example, that can tell that animals can feel emotions.
Speaker: You know, as I said, with the simple wagging of the dog's tail.
Speaker: Animals, you can tell a level of sort of what they call primary consciousness from that.
Speaker: There have been experiments by scientists, I mean, I'm not a scientist at all, I've got little understanding of how they work, that plants could have a very low level of consciousness.
Speaker: So plants may have a very low level of consciousness, but it's not to the extent where they can be happy or sad.
Speaker: And because it's to that extent where they can't feel pain, I think it's acceptable to eat a plant in that sense totally because number one, they can't feel emotions.
Speaker: However, you can take this thing far too far by saying we shouldn't eat animals, plants because they have consciousness.
Speaker: And the reason for that is because if you said that's everything, then you would starve because you won't be able to eat nothing.
Speaker: So it's the top of the food chain.
Speaker: We've got to eat some stuff.
Speaker: I mean, what do you think, Dan?
Speaker: I think in my view, I always, you know, because we can't test if an olive tree is conscious or not.
Speaker: Physically, it's, you know, pretty much impossible.
Speaker: You know, phototropism, geotropism, all these things.
Speaker: Yes, but they don't actually prove if the plant can feel happy or sad.
Speaker: So in that scenario... I was going to say, is consciousness more, though, than feeling happy and sad, though?
Speaker: I think that's why scientists have said some plants are conscious, because they believe that consciousness is more than emotions, but it can be, let's say, awareness and things.
Speaker: I think awareness goes more to intelligence.
Speaker: I think, yeah, plants are intelligent.
Speaker: I'll give you that.
Speaker: But I don't think, yeah, for me, consciousness is purely can they feel emotions?
Speaker: Okay, yeah.
Speaker: I mean, I think this is the challenging thing, and there's so many different definitions of consciousness.
Speaker: It comes always back to that.
Speaker: And, you know, I think we can't tell.
Speaker: But if I can't tell, I would like to assume, just in case, that they do.
Speaker: So if we assume that plants do indeed have consciousness, they can feel pain.
Speaker: Well, frankly, we need to eat something, as you've said.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: So if we're going to eat plants which might be conscious, which we could assume they're conscious, we might as well eat meat, frankly, because we might assume they're conscious as well.
Speaker: And it's the same rule that applies.
Speaker: And as you said earlier on, we are the apex predator as well.
Speaker: I mean, it sounds a bit sort of brutal, a bit out there to say it, but at the end of the day, we have to eat things and we are effectively the most sort of quote unquote developed being.
Speaker: So we have to eat something and we are sort of above these people in the natural biological food chain.
Speaker: So at the end of the day, we're going to have to eat them as some sort of source of food.
Speaker: Moving on to the last topic, I was just going to say to you, Dan, I'm sure you, me and all of our audience, in fact, have heard in the news quite a lot about Just Up Oil.
Speaker: So could you please explain to everyone what it is and your take on this quite large project?
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: So do you think it's fair to say it's a radical organisation?
Speaker: Just Up Oil?
Speaker: Yeah, it's radical, definitely, in what they do, in the methods, yeah.
Speaker: Yeah, so JustPort is a very radical environmental organization, which has some very questionable and interesting methods on how they campaign to climate change.
Speaker: One of them is gluing themselves to the street, invading events, other stuff that I would personally call crazy, such as
Speaker: destroying art pieces and artwork for absolutely no reason just to gain public attention i don't think this their strategy works in any way right i'm gonna say i think it's the worst strategy i've ever seen in someone that's trying to get support for their cause because all they do is they go at these events
Speaker: And they annoy people, frankly.
Speaker: If you annoy people, more people are going to say, look, there's no climate crisis where there is.
Speaker: And I'm not going to join this cause because I just can't deal with the annoyance that just the poor causes.
Speaker: Yeah, I mean, I totally agree with you there.
Speaker: I mean, I think pretty much everyone nowadays, there are a few people who don't, but pretty much everyone nowadays agrees with the cause for Jost-Napol.
Speaker: Everyone agrees that, well, pretty much everyone agrees that there's a climate crisis.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: And that global warming is happening.
Speaker: However, no one agrees that the way to tell the world something that pretty much everyone already knows is to sort of throw orange paint everywhere.
Speaker: Or what was it?
Speaker: Wasn't it destroying a Van Gogh painting and the Mona Lisa as well?
Speaker: Yes, and Stonehenge.
Speaker: Stonehenge, yes.
Speaker: So it just basically annoys the public what they're doing.
Speaker: They're not gaining support for their movement because people view them as annoying, a huge disturbance and a great nuisance.
Speaker: I'll take the opposite question, actually.
Speaker: Yeah, people just hate them.
Speaker: But I think the main thing about them, which I will give them credit to, is that they're pretty good at publicity.
Speaker: And that is that, I mean, we're talking about them right now.
Speaker: So they are fairly good at publicity.
Speaker: They've got some pretty good publicists in there.
Speaker: who are helping them.
Speaker: But at the end of the day, every time I think of them, as I'm sure you do, Dan, I just think they're extremely annoying.
Speaker: They're causing huge nuisance.
Speaker: And they're not gaining help for their own cause because people agree with the climate crisis, but they don't agree to disrupt people's everyday lives in order to prove the message.
Speaker: I mean, what do you think about their use of protest?
Speaker: The sort of, well, as you put it, radical form, which is true.
Speaker: I think it's appalling, frankly.
Speaker: I think there's no way anyone can prove to me that the only way and the right way to do a protest for awareness and to draw support for a cause is gluing yourself to the street, killing traffic,
Speaker: and destroying paintings that are part of human heritage and are worth millions and millions and millions of pounds.
Speaker: I mean, it's just crazy, frankly.
Speaker: If you actually think about it in a logical way, and you eliminate the cause that they're supporting, it's crazy.
Speaker: I think they would have, you know, yeah, fine, they get a lot of publicity, but I think what people should do, actually,
Speaker: is have a sensible strategy to gain awareness.
Speaker: I don't think it's that difficult nowadays with social media.
Speaker: We've posted a video online.
Speaker: They got 500 views in half an hour.
Speaker: And I think it's not that difficult.
Speaker: And if you do that, I think more people would join the cause because it's a very important thing.
Speaker: And unfortunately, a lot of the population is feeling alienated and upset.
Speaker: And they're like, no, I'm not going to join this.
Speaker: because they've made me late to work every day and there's nothing that I don't just don't want to align myself and identify myself with with this group then I fully get that you know I personally I wouldn't want to be aligned with just a boy I'm a huge believer that we should do all we can to stop the climate crisis but at the same time I just don't want to be aligned with just a point
Speaker: Yeah, I totally agree with you there.
Speaker: They've got a good cause.
Speaker: Everyone agrees that.
Speaker: But the more they do, the more they actually sort of hurt the cause as well.
Speaker: Because people just don't want to be like you and like me and like most people I know, they just don't want to be associated with them.
Speaker: Because in fairness, it just, you know, it just conjures these images up of destroying, as you said, artifacts worth millions.
Speaker: Recently, actually, I saw a video of a mother trying to get her baby to hospital, but a just-up oil protest had blocked the road so she couldn't.
Speaker: I mean, these are the kind of things which it conjures up, which just infuriates people.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: I mean, that's, that's, you know, we can all agree that's, I think the most I can say on this podcast is stupid or else we get taken down, but, um, they, I think we can all agree.
Speaker: It's, it's, it's not a good idea.
Speaker: And I also want to thank all of you for listening to our episode on animal ethics and.
Speaker: Please do not forget to go and listen to our episodes.
Speaker: We have a great array from art with Robbins Rivera to talking politics with Ryan Wayne.
Speaker: And lately we did an episode on history where we discussed the Cold War.
Speaker: Yes, thank you everyone for listening.
Speaker: As Diane said, please do take a look back at some of our past episodes.
Speaker: Also, please give us a five-star review on whatever platform you're listening on.
Speaker: Do you follow the podcast?
Speaker: And also, if you've got any inquiries or questions for us, please do either leave us a comment or do email us at debatablediscussions1 at gmail.com.
Speaker: And I think if you're stuck, it could be on our Spotify about page, but do definitely email us to say something.
Speaker: All right.
Speaker: Thank you, John.
Speaker: See you later.
Speaker: I'll thank you.
Speaker: I'll see you soon.
Speaker: Bye.
