Peter Singer - The Genius of Darwin: The Uncut Interviews - Richard Dawkins
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 06. 2009
- Richard Dawkins interviews Peter Singer for "The Genius of Charles Darwin", the Channel 4 UK TV program which won British Broadcasting Awards' "Best Documentary Series" of 2008. Buy the full 3-DVD set of uncut interviews, over 18 hours, in the RichardDawkins.net store: richarddawkins.net/store/index...
This footage was shot with the intention of editing for a television program. What you see here is the full extended interview, which includes a lot of rough camera transitions that were edited out of the final program (along with a lot of content). - Věda a technologie
I also just love how philosophers talk. “So you think I’m a bad person?” “Yes I do”. “I accept that”. Then they go grab a beer.
Haha. It reminds of rugby players on opposite teams. 😅
That is because they have no conviction.
Peter Singer is the only person against whom Richard Dawkins couldn't defend himself.
Well said
Agreed. This is the only video I’ve seen where Dawkins is possibly outmatched. The slightly flustered response towards Singer’s chalenge near the end is uncharacteristic.
The idea that you think Dawkins could not defend his position (and is not simply being polite) is a take for which I have not prepared a response.
Richard interviews Peter Stinger for a Channel 4 program called “The Genius of Charles Darwin” which won the British Broadcasting Award for Best Documentary!
"If you do eat meat, then you have the responsibility to know something about." I wonder how mr. Dawkins' knowledge on the meat production is these days...? Thank you!
Great video. I'd like to add that poetically Mary Shelley's Monster in Frankenstein, as mentioned in the video, was in fact vegan. Some people speculate this was perhaps as a follow-on effect of the enlightenment on the romantic period. knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articles/adams.html
Armanda GreenEyes just eat it and be good its not starving peoples duty to knovv about meat production but if you pretend to care then you should?
+Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science A great discussion, very interesting- thankyou for posting this.
SINGER IS SICK AND ABNORMAL ANTI ABORTIONISTS WILL GET HIM IT
glad to see a secular, rational and intelligent argument for veganism. stop eating meat is not a new age hippie fashion, but a truly evolved and intelligent perspective that needs to be embraced by the majority of humanity.
Unfortunately, the hippy new age spiritual dieticians have us rational ethicists outnumbered, vastly.
Which is why on the back of vegan products it lists ingredients such as "love water" etc. it's all marketed to them.
***** 'hippy' is just the stereotype, not necessarily the majority.
Sorry, but evidence points to the suggestion that hominins shifting to eat meat was an essential part of our own evolution. Suggesting we should all become vegan is inadvisable for a bunch of sensible health reasons.
You might enjoy reading this:
www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273
so? we needed meat in the past. not now. we needed tribalism and rape and live in caves and superstition in order to survive. we don't need that now. your argument is kind of stupid lol.
Yes, calling another person's opinion stupid is a great way to foster discussion, doubly so when their own is not presented with any evidence other than "I believe". Ironic.
Two very great people, that I have enormous respect for in an terrific interview together. Glad I watched this.
Ein ansprechendes- wirkendes Foto, in der Tat ;)
I love how calm and rational both parties remained during this conversation, considering the topic is generally so polarizing and tends to incite passion. I admire Dawkins greatly for being humble enough to concede that Singer is in practice a more moral individual, and also for concluding that, given his willingness to eat meat, had he lived when human slavery was socially acceptable, he would have practiced it himself. He says he would have done so only reluctantly, but I wonder about that, because it does not seem to be with much reluctance that he eats meat. I do not mean to be inflammatory, but as a vegan myself, I must admit that for me, the highlight of this video was Singer suggesting that he has assimilated Darwin better than Dawkins has. I believe that Dawkins dismissed this by saying that he is socially conforming, a tendency that can be seen as Darwinian, but I believe that misses the point. Christians accept Christianity (and many consciously reject Darwinism) as a function of social conformity, and no one would argue that this reflects the degree to which they have assimilated Darwin into their thoughts and choices. But overall I commend Dawkins for his commitment to reason and logical consistency.
+Johnny Tisdale do you think he went vegetarian/vegan after this interview? : )
50sorrowC I seriously doubt it, but I hope he proves me wrong.
+Johnny Tisdale The point of the talk wasn't that eating meat was bad. It was that animal suffering is bad. Killing animals that do not feel fear, suffering or pain is the way to go; free range over factory farms.
+Just Curious Could it not be said that anything is neither right or wrong? On what grounds can meat eaters (myself being one) claim that killing animals for food is any more justifiable than killing human infants for food, if we can agree that human infants are about as sentient as a grown animal? I personally think we meat eaters have to find a more concrete form of justification than simply "less sentience = more justifiably killed". Some don't even take it that far - their justification being "tastier = more justifiably killed".
+epiphany55
in respect to your question on why eating animals over eating infants, the answer involves the concept of moral agency. Human beings are moral agents, meaning they have a concept of morality and can determine right from wrong. Animals are not moral agents, meaning they have no concept of morality and are unable to determine right from wrong. Humans know that cannibalism is wrong, whereas animals do not; therefore a human eating an infant human is wrong.
Everyone watching this video gets +10 in intelligence
LEVEL UP
+100 morals
Which are kinda obvious but what is obvious is complicated to idiots otherwise they won't be commoners
I found myself deeply disturbed and I bailed
Dissecting Ethics atom by atom.
Animals like elephants grieving is not a story, it is fact, there's also footage of these events.
Facts are established based on evidence, not assertion.
Read the post again.
The problem is, Helios, watching something as a human means that what we see is filtered through our own expectations and ideas. We may indeed be watching the grief of an elephant - and I'm inclined to agree - but it could also only appear that way because the act resembles what we do when grieving.
Hi
The elephant’s capacity for sadness and grief is truly unique amongst members of the animal world, as it is particularly complex in terms of emotions. While most animals do not hesitate to leave the weak and young behind to die, elephants are distressed by the situation, and continue to show signs of this grieving for extended periods of time.
Because elephants live in such close-knit herds and live for about as long as humans do (approximately 70 years), they form strong bonds with those around them. When these ones die, the rest of the herd mourns that death. Mothers and aunts are also prone to mourning a still-born calf. The mother of a dead calf (whether at birth or later on in its life) shows her grief through her physical disposition. Her eyes are sunken and her ears drooping, her mood is visibly miserable.
The herd will take great care in the burial of the dead. Cows walk to and fro in search of leaves and twigs. They use this to cover the body of the deceased in an act of dignity for the dead. When a herd encounters the skeleton of a dead elephant, they have shown an undeniable fascination with the bones. The cows will mull over the bones, fondling them in thoughtful contemplation. Cows take bones from the skeleton and scatter them, hiding them under bushes in the surrounding area. This behaviour is thought to be as a protection for the rest of the herd, as it throws stalking predators off the trail of the cows and their calves. Even years later, elephant have been observed revisiting the site where one of their herd or family had died. They will remain here for days at a time, mourning the loss of that one.
***** Thanks for your thoughtful reply, and as I said, I am inclined to agree with you - in fact I feel almost certain that is indeed what is happening. I was rather making a philosophical point about the near impossibility of being certain about things like that, especially when considering non-human animals whose language we can't verify by asking ;)
This is pretty good. Most of the time when I hear Singer interviewed it's with an interviewer who doesn't understand him. I've found that frustrating and I usually give up early.
Dawkins does a good job here.
Yes
Treating others as you would want to be treated is an intelligent objective to aim for. A person who lives by these values will experience gratification in life, When you do the right thing you feel confident. When you do the wrong thing you feel remorse and guilt.
Dawkins having zero argument makes me think I should consider this vegan thing...
After i did the research on veganism, i came to the conclusion that there is no valid reason not to be vegan but a lot of reasons to be vegan.
He wasn't trying very hard was he? LOL.
This was one of the best interviews I've ever watched. I'm going vegan 10 years ago and vegetarian in 86! Empathy, it sure tastes yummy!
Christina Arasmo Beymer Completely agree. Two brilliant minds. Definitely one of my favourite youtube videos - made me decide to be vegan.
+S. C.G.B. One of my favorites too! This and flannery oconnors reading of a good man is hard to find.
Peter Singer & Richard Dawkins , two great thinkers, this is definitely worth to watch.
andres great thinkers your sick snger is a child harmer
Now let’s discuss the morality of vivisection.
37:07 - Bam!
what a terrible response by Dawkins, Singer could have countered with: But you could say that you recognize you live in a society poisoned by religion and yet you don't go along with that, you fight religion and yet not speciesism.
@@neetbucks521 Indeed. Facts and logic destroy carnist nonsense every time.
He just admitted to being a sheep and that he can’t really think for himself lol.
I like how Dawkins is honest that he might have owned slaves when it was the norm. It's not an easy thing to admit!
Peter Singer and Richard Dawkings, some of the most rational people.
+Ekaterinya Vladinakova Sad, that only one of them lives by his conscience.
@Anton Babani pedophiles??
@Anton Babani so Dawkins is a pedophile for minimizing pedophilia and his own victimization?
@Anton Babani ?
@Anton Babani ... this does by no means allow to call Mr. Singer a pedophile.
Singer is incredibly astute and reasonable. If only we had more people in our society like him who could educate people about our presuppositions and contradictions in our thoughts and actions.
Yet he is also wrong, obuse, and unreasonable in his claims made in this video. It is almost as if he is the one who is not consistent.
What part do you think Peter was wrong?@@brianmacker1288
That was awesome! Singer and Dawkins are probably the two thinkers that have shaped my life the most.
This is the most interesting conversations I've seen in a very long time. I admire both men intellectual honesty. Thank you!
What an extraordinary and glaring contrast there is between a conversation like this, between two great intellects and what could expect to hear from two religious leaders.
I love the background. It is the perfect landscape for this discussion on morality.
That was a great intellectual interview between the English and the Australian. Awesome viewing
This is like the best interview I've ever seen
Such a nice conversation. A proper conversation. It was eye-opening, not only on the topic, but also on how people conversate. I wish I could let people finish their point like these gentlemen do :)
This is a great video.
Amazing to see you here, even though this was 11 years ago
I love your videos :D
Two beautiful humans both-in intelligence and in moral ethics too..
Dawkins is not a much ethical person.
Who is Singer? Are you insane? No one has ever heard or needs to hear this man, Singer, again. This is a truly pathetic interview. The only beautiful mind, unbelievable genius here is Dawkins.
@Gege Andersen: Thats because you are living under a rock. Dawkins has gr8 regards for Singer and claims him to be a prime example for practical ethics and morality but ignorant people like you just dont want to recognize his teachings and his applied principles of life.
@@bellarosalarsen1638 Singer is considerably one of the most prominent philosophers in our time.
I've been binge-watching Dawkins videos and I have to say, this was one of the most moving and galvanizing.
Love the parts where Richard giggles. It's kind of nice to see someone so intelligent and sober be able to take things lightly.
Thank you Richard for uploading this! I am a huge fan of Singer and greatly enjoyed this!
Always thought Peter Singer was a badass
Agreed
Dawkins' value system seems so utterly bankrupt next to Singer. It seems odd that someone who defines animals as "non-human animals" wouldn't be a advocate for veganism.
11:13 - Dawkins - "I don't know much about slaughterhouses"
Yes. Yes, you do.
This is a fascinating dialogue. Singer, in his subtle way, calls Dawkins immoral on several occasions while Dawkins rambles and fawns over how "moral" Singer is.
+Darrin Kornelsen Noones calling anyone anything and Dawkins wasn´t reluctant to buy into Singers reasoning, so I dont see your point. Its admirable to tweak your views as you meet a better argument.
These are subtle persons speaking in subtle ways:-) Let me explain what was happening.
1- Singer rightly defines the meat industry as an entity that allows for needless suffering and correctly identifies the corollary- "eating animal products is an axiomatic wrong".
2- Dawkins, to his credit, never makes an attempt to bring the value system and the disparate behaviour, his disparate behaviour, into some kind of coherence.
3- Dawkins knows and understands but is still a carnivore by choice. This is what makes this exchange so fascinating.
***** When a person, who is not a socipath, speaks of 'wrong' she is predicating her definition on some moral axiom. A moral axiom is a self evident moral truth. The axiom as it applies to eating meat is, "It is wrong to cause suffering." The meat industry as it exists today is the direct cause of suffering of tens of billions of sentient beings. The vast majority of cows, pigs, lambs and chickens that make up the products of animal agriculture~
1- are housed in small pens or cages barely larger than the animals body (a living hell for animals evolution has designed for foraging and social interaction)
2- breathe fetid air and are confined to crowded filthy environments
3- are treated brutally during transport and slaughter
and
4- suffer from industry practices developed from the sole ethic of cost minimalization (debeaking, tail docking, castration, atificial insemination, dehorning, early sepration of mother and offspring)
Animals raised in commercial farms live eat and sleep in agony. By eating meat a person is guilty of actively supporting this agony. This person is causing suffering.
Indirectly the meat industry causes suffering through land, air and water pollution, resource waste and habitat destruction.
+Darrin Kornelsen I would wager a guess that Dawkins would admit to maintaining a certain level of sociopathy.
***** Epathy is a house of cards that can be muted by ideology, gradualism, distancing, experience. Self-serving pragmatism as the locus for moral thought will lead to dark places.
Read Zimbardos "Lucifer Effect" or Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem".
This interview was simply brilliant.
The best discussion ever!
It would be great to do a follow up on this! Richard and Peter should get together again!
great discussion btwn two of the greatest thinkers of our time.
thx so much for posting.
This is a great discussion.
Brilliant! Bravo!
This is my best veganism, atheist, scientific video.
such a great conversation!
great interview. I learned a lot, especially on moral consistency. ;) thank you.
37:06 BAMMM!!!
So good to watch these two together. Awesome interview. I went atheist partly influenced by Dawkins and went vegan by reading Singer. I think that atheism and veganism have one point in common: rejecting anthropocentrism. For me, it was very easy to go vegan due to my atheism. I hope Dawkins goes vegan too.
Which book by Singer did you read ?
Rational people go vegan and atheist. ❤️
In a recent talk between these two, it does indeed seem that Dawkins is much closer to vegan now then he was in this video.
This was very educational
Amazing to see how much changed since 2009 in the area of animal rights and the farm animal industry
I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Singer and Dawkins, thank you for posting. However, reading the comments below just gave me a headache. For those of you wondering why Dawkins is still eating meat, I recommend you listen to Dr Melanie Joy's presentation on "Carnism" which explains why most of us still do (well, not me, I'm vegan)
+Just Curious You would have to ask him :-)
I'd like to give a shout out to my teacher Mr.Howe for making my Sunday evening
it's 4:01am, so i'm gonna have to call it a night and watch this later. should be interesting and very enlightening.
What a joy to find that someone in the world shares my views about other species rights. I could not agree more with Prof. Singer's argument uploaded here. I am not a vegan but I am very concerned about other species rights.
Prof. Singer and Prof. Dawkins what a delight to watch. Thank you very much for uploading this interview. Just great!
Richard Dawkins has highlighted and promoted 'rational thought' whether it be opposed to religion or otherwise to such a level i feel it almost an amazing time step periodically to be alive in. Its huge and the future will reflect and be shaped by this.
One issue is, for Dawkins, Dillahunty, and it seems other thinkers, is that meat eaters do not see the rational incongruency of eating an animal as it is, alive. The conversation always tends towards abstracts, roadkill, oysters, cannibalism, etc. Have you ever seen a human eat a live bird, pig, or land animal without weapons, tools, fire, preparation, proper storage etc? It happens, especially if you think of fish, but we aren't "designed" by nature to be mammalian predators, we are mammalian omnivores, but not of the magnitude or type of meat we eat now. We can't run nearly as fast, we don't have long talons or lots of tearing teeth, and we don't have the intestines and gut biome to more efficiently process meat. It's not compatible for us to eat meat of most kinds, excluding insects. I would eat insects if I had to. I would fast for weeks before I would hunt an animal for their body parts. I already grow vegetables and save seeds. It's not astrophysics, we need to release the animals from human dominance.
I have to say that this is interview between these two honest men completely agree with m standing on these matters.
oh my god, my two favourite people in one video!
If only this discussion represented what the discussion generally is like between meateaters and vegans.
+BearWindAppleyard I actually find it more frustrating to talk to rational people who realize eating meat is wrong, but eat it anyway, like Dawkins.
+Devon Fritz Why is that?
@@noneofyourbusiness8252
3 years later: Because you can't continue on the debate, and you lose your respect for them for not caring enough to avoid inflicting unnecessary abhorrent suffering by doing some lifestyle changes.
I wonder if, as most people probably seem like idiots to Dawkins, to Singer most people seem like sociopaths. I can tell he is troubled that Dawkins understands his arguments intellectually, but doesn't care enough to change. As a current carnivore myself, I am one to talk, but I think Singer's field is even more precious than Dawkins' passion for discovering the reality of the universe. If we don't do all we can to prevent the suffering of our fellow/sister beings, what the hell is the point?
#govegan fellow being ❤
many thanks.
we need more people like peter singer.
Dawkins is so outmatched here.
You'll find that to always be the case when a non-vegan is trying to take on veganism. It's an unjustifiable position to not be on the side of veganism.
...and now I have to throw away all the meat in my fridge.
Peter Singer is so intelligent! His logic is just so fluid, and his thinking, and ideas are impressive.
Many people think that it is hard to become a vegetarian, or a vegan. Actually it is not: it is just a matter of getting rid of a habit, and a bad one at that!
We grow up eating meat, without thinking about what is in our plates. It tastes pretty good, and that's the reason we seek it out. Had you grown up somewhere else, for instance in some countries where insects are eaten, you would eat that without any problems. However for people who grow up not eating insects, the idea is repulsive.
When you stop eating meat, yes, you do have to adjust at first, in the first month or so, but then something strange, and unexpected happens: you start feeling the same repulsion that you would if you were to eat insects, or eat something that is foreign to you. You see that meat on your plate, with blood leaking, you cut into it, and instead of thinking about meat, you actually see that it is flesh you are cutting into, and you picture the animal who once was behind that meat, and the agony that his or her life most likely was, the feedlots for cattle, the overcrowded cages for chickens, the pens where pigs spend their entire lives, without ever being able to even stand up, because the floor for them consists of stainless-steel rods (so that excrements fall below where it is easier to hose them away). After a while, even the smell of meat cooking has a strange smell, a stench that you had never smelled before, and in fact I think it is the stench of death. Grilled meat, cooked in the garden on a nice summer evening suddenly no longer smells good at all, and all you want to do is get back inside, close the windows, until the smell is gone...
Anyway, if people just reduced the amount of meat they consume, reduce it as much as possible, and allow themselves to eat it once or twice a month, or even just once a week, the whole meat industry would change. Animals would be allowed to live in more comfortable, and natural conditions, just as organic farmers let them, and that alone would be an immense improvement, not only for the animals but for people's health, because eating meat from factory farms is bad, very bad actually. The meat industry of course does not tell you that, and takes great precautions to hide from the public its practices because they are appalling. I think it was Linda McCartney who said: "If slaughterhouses had glass-walls, everyone would be vegetarian," to which we should add that, if factory farms had glass-walls, most people would weep....
Besides the issue of animal welfare, and ethical considerations, there is a consensus in the health industry that is beginning to gain importance, and which is that eating large quantities of meat, meaning several times a week, is causing serious, and even deadly health problems in the long-run, and this industry is increasingly encouraging its patients, and the public, to reduce meat consumption in order to prevent heart-attacks, clogged arteries, etc., etc.
Thanks to Both Gentlemen for sharing their views.. I am truly inspired & have a very interesting project in mind.. I'd love to speak to you both someday among others & include ur contributions. To Prof.Dawkins this might be the first time I wud have spoken directly to u & I would have you know, without sounding too patronising, that I've watched & read all ur material. U are to many including me, what Darwin is to you.. You indeed are, as many Wallace described, more Darwinian than Darwin..
Very mature, intelligent conversation.🙏
Amazing interview, thank you. You have changed my life Richard!
PS - I selfishly want Richard's health to remain, please kindly suggest him to investigate the scientific work by Dr John McDougall MD. He has written many books on the medical literature.
I just really like listening to smart people talk
Is there a way to get subtitles for this video? I'd like my fellow humans from this side of the world to be able to learn something from it.
FFS now I'm a vegetarian :(
Dawkins reminds me of how I used to think when I ate meat. It's hard to live like that for long, if you have any ethics you will eventually become vegan.
Vegan fascist.
You don't know the meaning of that word
Siba Burck
Your pomposity, self-congratulations, smugness and phoney moral superiority is/are why vegans are so hated.
We are hated because you are choosing to cause suffering and we call you out on your immoral behavior.
Deep down you know you are wrong
Siba Burck
Ever heard of the food-chain, or the undeniable/undisputed fact of our species being carnivores?
Agree wholeheartedly with this, good on Peter.
Totally agree with Gov33. This has got 2 be, in my opinion 1 of the greatest interviews ive found. It touches topics that most people, including myself, kind of just scratch the surface, and dont really give any further thought. I think this interview is great cuz it is not only very indepth, but also gives us the opportunity, in a rather small confined space 2 see tha whole picture of our actions as human beings.
So Richard Dawkins is just gonna go along with societal norms even when he sees that there's an in inherent issue? Carnist be carnists no matter how smart.
I am/was vegan for years living in a hindu household, but I moved a few months ago and am offered a free barBq steak tonight (true story), its so hard to say no when surrounded by social norms and free food, since I am vegan, but they keep offering me free steak about once a week and I dont have the will power to say no. After eating beans and bread 99% of the time, eating a barBQ steak is like sex, like some kind of caveman primitive brain satisfaction. Accourding to Buddhism, meat is ok if its offered as a secondary thought, if the animal wasnt slaughtered for yourself...but being atheist I guess thats just an excuse for me.
P B Richard Dawkins like most people aren’t only eating meat offered to them. They buy it for themselves. Even if all you do is eat meat offered by someone else you are essentially creating demand again by saying yes to the offer as they will have to buy more for themselves the next time they shop for groceries.
@@pcb8059 I'm sorry for you and I apologize to the animal that you ate. Veganism is like love and truth. Please don't call yourself a vegan before you swear not to eat products of cruelty
So the intrensic and non-negotiable value of human life is a lie we tell to ourselves.
Ok, i´ll stick to that lie any day, if it makes us behave more kind towards each other - or even if it only gives us a bad feeling if we don´t.
Fascinating, of course, and I thought that they finally came down to my level when Dawkins used the term 'Yuk factor' in relation to cannibalism.
Yes, but Dawkins was disappointly agreeable with Peter Singers absolute bullshit.
What a fantastic discussion on morality. I hope Richard thinks about those poor little furry critters a bit more ;)
37:00 - Peter Singer destroying Dawkins with Dawkins' own views of Dawinism!
+Jack Harley I wouldn't say destroying... Especially since Dawkins already conceded that point earlier in the interview.
Nobody can destroy Dawkins when it comes to Darwinism.
Peter Singer, Steven Pinker...(almost) anagram much:-D!
Ha! So I wasn't the only one to have thought so.
For the first second of footage, i almost thought i was watching the jeffersons again
I believe that moral actions are defined by whether they help you to become a well-functioning human being. Sometimes, such actions will not only go against some of your own desires but also some desires of others.
Vegan food-for-thought. Peter Singer is a clever man indeed. Logically, Dawkins have to agree. There are no logical reasons for eating meat anymore.
I wonder if RD gave up eating meat after this interview or not. 🤔
Scary dude , A relative thinker who advocates human termination !!
tony wood Relative ? relative how ? and exectly when did Singer advocated for human termination ?
stefan klisarov He does not postulate absolutes of morality and is in favor of terminating the seriously ill and malformed !!
You seriously need to read some philosophy before attempting on using the jargon that you clearly do not understand.
His morality is as objective as they get.
All conscious creatures deserve equal consideration of their interests.
If we find that a being has a centralised nervous system , it most likely is conscious and we ought to have moral consideration towards it, it is as simple as that.
And i don really know how the hell did you understand his argument as promoting termination of the mentally ill.
It is again very simple, people have no objective reason not to consider animals as moral agents, if you bring intelligence as one you face the difficulty with excluding retarded people or infants from your moral scope.
Are you able to see the difference ?
He is stating the exact opposite , that we ought to treat animals as moral agents.
stefan klisarov Having an objective morality is having no morality......If we decide what is moral from a relative point of view than all things are moral because all things are relative !!
Explain to me the logic behind your statement please :)
How does it follow that if i am the origin of my morality , everithing is morally permited ?
this is one of the greatest videos on youtube.
By the way, the last line of the Flanders&Swan song you mentioned wasn't "don't eat animals? ridiculous!", it was "Don't fight people? ridiculous!"
Though "Don't eat animals? ridiculous!" would have been very fitting.
And yet Dawkins still continues to eat meat. Smh.
I think they did get into the evolution of empathy. They talked about when human beings were in small groups and others were in a position to reciprocate. However you do make a good point that extending empathy to animals could also have an evolutionary basis.
~ Brilliant interview ~ mgf
The issue at 38 mins was explored in the movie "Skullduggery"
The scenario (of finding modern australopithecenes) discussed at 38:00-42:00 is explored in depth in the novel "Orphan of Creation" , by Roger MacBride Allen.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on these arguments if an animal has the mental capacity to contemplate its own suffering (Even if its a rudimentary comprehension), and has a fully developed central nervous system, including a brain equally or more capable of discerning pain then our own, would not the animal with the most nerve endings in its body be the animal that would always be spared suffering first, even over a human?
@ananiasacts, I think I was thinking of empathy as something "outside" of evolution, though of course the ability to empathize probably as much a product of evolution as are teeth and claws. You make a great point, thanks.
@WickedJargon thats awesome, congrats
@CmdrTobs This is an interesting point, I guess it is easy to think that supporting the concept of evloution and supporting the process of nautral selection are the same thing
"In a practical sense, refrain from deliberately harming anyone, without just cause." It never ceases to surprise me to discover how many people believe that sentence reflects a behavioral perimeter that is considered wrong. Veganism is the most basic type of decency; merely the moral baseline.
Great video an in depth discussion on the ethics of animal welfare
not all nerve endings transmit pain signals - but granted, if there were an animal that because of the structure of its nervous system would be able to feel pain more intensely than us, it would follow, that we should care more about not making those animals suffer than us. Another part (as Singer states) in assessing the capacity to suffer however is the capability to (for example) fear for the future, which corresponds to intelligence, so it seems implausible that such an animal exists
I have one question - how can Peter Singer know who has and who has not meaningful life? How can he know which live is worth living and which is not?
@NEUHEITEN100 Thank you for your kind words, and I'm quite pleased we "found each other". Lot's of information out there, it's just a matter of finding it, and sharing it!
We truly are what we eat, no doubt in my mind. I've never enjoyed food more than in the last few years. It really is less expensive too - again, it's once you understand how this "corporate / marketing / government / system works". People should always remember the KISS system "Keep It Simple Stupid".
Cheers DD
Well said.
Well moomin468 GOOD FOR YOU! You just showed that you are Smart enough To Know you have FLAWS in your logic & Need to get back to this topic after you take the time needed to Gather enough information to form Complex thought into Sentences.
I agree, for someone who is so strong about being rational, he doesn't justify himself at all. The only thing I would think is maybe he didnt consider these issues before the interview, and maybe now he's changed.
Furthermore unlike a religious belief which isnt necessarily causing any immediate or direct harm, eating meat is a very real thing.
But overall i give him credit for being honest and also doing this interview in the first place, helping Singer spread his message.
@Krshwunk I feel as though I've spoken at length about my opinion on this subject. I'm interested to see why you disagree. Would you be so kind as to explain your position so that I might understand? I'm open to change my position if you can provide some reason to.
My 2 older sister eats meat everyday and struggle with anemia. My younger sister had a hemoglobin of 8.2 (12.5 needed to donate) 3 years ago when she ate meat, now, as a vegan her iron has slowly increased to 10.3 (before vitamins). I don't think heme and non-heme makes a difference, it is that amount of vitamin C that helps you absorb it. Don't eat things with caffeine or high calcium with iron containing foods, but eat lots of vitamin C for max absorbency.