In this episode of The Poetry Of Reality, we sit in on an engrossing conversation between Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer on stage in Melbourne, Australia.
Every species is inherently specieistic. If one species is able to exploit another one, it will always do so without restraint or limit.
Humans are the only species who could potentially refrain from exploiting another species because of their capability of rational thinking. So, the commonly used argument that factory farming is „against nature“ is simply wrong. The exact opposite is true: limitless exploitation is the true nature of nature.
The only valid argument against factory farming or any kind of cruelty against animals is human moral. To call something „cruel“ is already a human-specific value judgment. Non-human animals cannot be cruel, just because of the fact that they do not have a set of values, which would be a prerequisite to apply a term like „cruel“. Only with the evolution of human civilization, a set of values arose that put humans in the position to judge their actions on a certain subset of values, called morality, that defines these actions as good or bad, kind or cruel, right or wrong.
Of course, it would be a good thing if humanity would act with respect to its morality and rationality, but the problem with that is, that only individuals have morality and the ability to think rational, humanity in its entirety does not.
It was 2010 when I attended a conference in Melbourne where Peter Singer was one of the keynote speakers and he was telling the packed audience that " we used to be hunter gatherers" but that we had changed. Really Peter??? I did stand and point out that no-one had told our digestive system, our physiological system of this 4+mya established hominin biology that a philosopher had just rubbed out our dietary basis of animal proteins because it wasn't 'nice' to animals. Since when have any animal species been 'nice' to each other and why did our most efficient diet - that of the hunter gatherer - be replaced by the grasslands devastating cereals production that damages our guts as much as it damages the rangelands biodiversity of the planet on which we depend.
Interesting discussion but what about plants? How about Charles Darwin and the root-brain hypothesis, what about the modern science on how plants sense and interact with the world to make survival decisions. And India’s Jains have been avoiding harming not just animals but plants too for thousands of years. (consuming fruit, seeds, nuts where the plant is not killed). “Mobility is wasted on the mobile.”
The highest, or at least one of the highest values of human moral is to regard every life as precious and dignified. That alone should already be sufficient reason for everyone with a fair amount of moral to strive after minimizing the suffering of all living beings.
But not to eat meat is the wrong approach towards that end.
The evolution of a brain as big as ours would not have been possible if humans were herbivores. Our prehistoric ancestors would have starved on a vegetarian diet. In contrast, in our modern, rich societies it is indeed possible to get enough energy for the operation of our large brains even without eating meat, so, we can become vegetarians without having to fear not getting enough nutrients. But the main reason why we should not refrain from eating meat is because it’s our nature. We happened to evolve as omnivores and if you would artificially force humans not to eat meat you would take away a core trait of our species. So, even though it’s (mostly) not a trait we need for our survival anymore, we should not ban ourselves from the pleasure of eating meat. And it’s an obvious fact that the majority of all humans finds meat quite delicious.
Therefore, we should focus our efforts in reducing animal suffering not on eating no meat but on improving the conditions of factory farming and probably also on the development of artificial meat.
Hi Richard, could you please give brief introductions to these previously recorded episodes at least stating when and where and at which event they were recorded. Additional comments welcome too...
Every species is inherently specieistic. If one species is able to exploit another one, it will always do so without restraint or limit.
Humans are the only species who could potentially refrain from exploiting another species because of their capability of rational thinking. So, the commonly used argument that factory farming is „against nature“ is simply wrong. The exact opposite is true: limitless exploitation is the true nature of nature.
The only valid argument against factory farming or any kind of cruelty against animals is human moral. To call something „cruel“ is already a human-specific value judgment. Non-human animals cannot be cruel, just because of the fact that they do not have a set of values, which would be a prerequisite to apply a term like „cruel“. Only with the evolution of human civilization, a set of values arose that put humans in the position to judge their actions on a certain subset of values, called morality, that defines these actions as good or bad, kind or cruel, right or wrong.
Of course, it would be a good thing if humanity would act with respect to its morality and rationality, but the problem with that is, that only individuals have morality and the ability to think rational, humanity in its entirety does not.
Morality and any associated ideal is rooted entirely in your presupposition some 'higher power' defines what is correct for human behavior . . .
Fuck you and your Jewish god, you kikesucking Zionist ass-whore.
Hi Richard,
Do you know this stuff is here? It really shouldn't be getting past the moderators.
Jo
Morality and any associated ideal is rooted entirely in your presupposition some 'higher power' defines what is correct for human behavior . . .
Fuck you and your Jewish god, you kikesucking Zionist ass-whore.
EVOLUTION
(a poem inspired by the book "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin)
My child, my child
You're my flesh and my blood
Yet you look nothing like me.
Your eyes are big like a bullfrog's
Your jaw is more like a gill
Your arms have the bones of a shark fin
Your body is like the trunk
of the sea anemone.
My child, my child
Why are you not like your father and me?
Oh mother, stop fussing
I am perfectly human
Why can't you see?
Just like you and my father
I evolved long ago from a lamprey
that walked right out of the sea!
It was 2010 when I attended a conference in Melbourne where Peter Singer was one of the keynote speakers and he was telling the packed audience that " we used to be hunter gatherers" but that we had changed. Really Peter??? I did stand and point out that no-one had told our digestive system, our physiological system of this 4+mya established hominin biology that a philosopher had just rubbed out our dietary basis of animal proteins because it wasn't 'nice' to animals. Since when have any animal species been 'nice' to each other and why did our most efficient diet - that of the hunter gatherer - be replaced by the grasslands devastating cereals production that damages our guts as much as it damages the rangelands biodiversity of the planet on which we depend.
Interesting discussion but what about plants? How about Charles Darwin and the root-brain hypothesis, what about the modern science on how plants sense and interact with the world to make survival decisions. And India’s Jains have been avoiding harming not just animals but plants too for thousands of years. (consuming fruit, seeds, nuts where the plant is not killed). “Mobility is wasted on the mobile.”
This talk was excellent. One of the best. Peter Singer's stand for animal rights is truly admirable.
The highest, or at least one of the highest values of human moral is to regard every life as precious and dignified. That alone should already be sufficient reason for everyone with a fair amount of moral to strive after minimizing the suffering of all living beings.
But not to eat meat is the wrong approach towards that end.
The evolution of a brain as big as ours would not have been possible if humans were herbivores. Our prehistoric ancestors would have starved on a vegetarian diet. In contrast, in our modern, rich societies it is indeed possible to get enough energy for the operation of our large brains even without eating meat, so, we can become vegetarians without having to fear not getting enough nutrients. But the main reason why we should not refrain from eating meat is because it’s our nature. We happened to evolve as omnivores and if you would artificially force humans not to eat meat you would take away a core trait of our species. So, even though it’s (mostly) not a trait we need for our survival anymore, we should not ban ourselves from the pleasure of eating meat. And it’s an obvious fact that the majority of all humans finds meat quite delicious.
Therefore, we should focus our efforts in reducing animal suffering not on eating no meat but on improving the conditions of factory farming and probably also on the development of artificial meat.
Morality and any associated ideal is rooted entirely in your presupposition some 'higher power' defines what is correct for human behavior . . .
Fuck you and your Jewish god, you kikesucking Zionist ass-whore.
They absomotherfuckinglutely do. Humans are animals 🤦♀️ This isn't up for fucking debate.
Hi Richard, could you please give brief introductions to these previously recorded episodes at least stating when and where and at which event they were recorded. Additional comments welcome too...
Otherwise...love the substack/podcast!