Introducing Sentientist Conversations: Jamie Woodhouse discusses Animal Morality with Frans de Waal

WEBVTT
00:00:00.959 --> 00:00:03.759
Hello everyone, James here.
00:00:03.759 --> 00:00:12.080
Once again, this week we're sharing a guest bonus episode from a fellow podcast that we love and support here at Humanism Now.
00:00:12.080 --> 00:00:19.839
This week I'm delighted to share an episode of Sentientism, hosted by friend of the show, Jamie Woodhouse.
00:00:19.839 --> 00:00:35.759
Each week on the Sentientism Podcast, Jamie discusses with a guest the sentientist worldview, bringing together the values and campaigns of humanism with those of animal ethics, advocating all of sentient life.
00:00:35.759 --> 00:00:51.759
With Jamie's permission, I'm delighted to share this episode of the podcast, originally published in June 2021 and featuring primatologist Franz DeWal in what would sadly be one of Professor DeWal's final podcast entities.
00:00:51.759 --> 00:01:04.879
I hope you enjoy the conversation, and if you would like to find out more about sentientism, you can follow Jamie at his website sentientism.info or subscribe to sentientism wherever you get your podcasts.
00:01:04.879 --> 00:01:11.040
You can also listen back to episode number four of Humanism Now, where Jamie was one of our very first guests.
00:01:11.040 --> 00:01:14.879
But for now, enjoy the Sentientism podcast.
00:01:20.959 --> 00:01:25.760
Welcome back to the Sentientism Podcast, a podcast about what's real and what matters.
00:01:25.760 --> 00:01:32.799
Sentientism answers those two deep questions by committing to using evidence and reason and having compassion for all sentient beings.
00:01:32.799 --> 00:01:35.200
In this episode, I talked to Franz DeVar.
00:01:35.200 --> 00:01:45.120
Franz is a primatologist and ethologist who's featured in TV and radio productions and TED talks viewed by tens of millions of people, helping us understand the morality of non-human animals.
00:01:45.120 --> 00:01:57.359
He's a professor of primate behavior and director of the Living Links Center at Emory University, and is the author of many books, including Chimpanzee Politics, The R in a Ape, The Mama's Last Hug, and The Bonobo and the Atheist.
00:01:57.359 --> 00:02:04.959
His research centers on primate social behavior, including conflict resolution, cooperation, inequity aversion, and food sharing.
00:02:04.959 --> 00:02:10.960
He's a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
00:02:10.960 --> 00:02:13.840
I'd love to know what you think of this episode and the more than 50 others.
00:02:13.840 --> 00:02:16.960
Don't forget to work through our back catalogue if you're a new subscriber.
00:02:16.960 --> 00:02:23.759
Every person who rates and reviews or shares our podcast with a friend helps us nudge a few more people towards more compassionate, rational thinking.
00:02:23.759 --> 00:02:30.000
You can find out more about sentientism at Sentientism.info, or just search for sentientism on your favourite social media platform.
00:02:30.000 --> 00:02:34.319
We're on Twitter, Reddit, Discord, Telegram, Instagram, Facebook, and most other places.
00:02:34.319 --> 00:02:36.639
You'll be made welcome in our global community groups.
00:02:36.639 --> 00:02:39.840
They're open to anyone interested in these ideas, not just sentientists.
00:02:39.840 --> 00:02:41.039
Thanks for listening.
00:02:46.159 --> 00:02:47.039
Good morning, friends.
00:02:47.039 --> 00:02:47.520
How are you?
00:02:47.520 --> 00:02:49.120
I'm here in Atlanta.
00:02:49.120 --> 00:02:53.759
I'm on my way for the for my first travel by airplane to Europe soon.
00:02:53.759 --> 00:02:56.159
So we are all being vaccinated here.
00:02:56.159 --> 00:02:58.719
And I hope in Europe, this the same situation.
00:02:59.039 --> 00:03:01.680
Yeah, slowly haltingly starting to get back to normal.
00:03:01.680 --> 00:03:04.960
Some nervousness about the variants, but you know, we're generally on the right track.
00:03:04.960 --> 00:03:08.240
And hopefully in a position to be a bit more generous to the rest of the world soon as well.
00:03:08.240 --> 00:03:08.879
But let's see.
00:03:08.879 --> 00:03:09.360
Let's see.
00:03:09.360 --> 00:03:12.159
But it's good to hear that you're you're going to get your first trip in.
00:03:12.159 --> 00:03:16.080
Thank you so much for taking the time to join this series of sentientist conversations.
00:03:16.080 --> 00:03:23.759
And as we've talked about briefly, it focuses on the two deepest philosophical questions, what's real and what matters morally.
00:03:23.759 --> 00:03:35.360
And I'm biased because I'm trying to put forward this some think of it as an upgrade of secular humanism, which suggests that when it comes to thinking about what's real, we should use evidence and reason and a naturalistic approach.
00:03:35.360 --> 00:03:45.280
And when it comes to what matters morally, the clue is in the name that we should use sentience, the capacity to have experiences, to suffer and flourish, as the defining characteristic for moral inclusion.
00:03:45.280 --> 00:03:49.439
But I'm talking to people in these conversations who agree and disagree with the philosophy.
00:03:49.439 --> 00:03:51.759
So yeah, it'll be fascinating to hear your personal story.
00:03:51.759 --> 00:03:54.400
And if so much of your work plays into those themes, of course.
00:03:54.400 --> 00:03:55.520
Yeah, it's great to talk to you.
00:03:55.520 --> 00:03:59.199
And for the rare people that don't know of your work already, how would you best introduce yourself?
00:03:59.599 --> 00:04:03.680
I'm a Dutch American um zoologist, etologist.
00:04:03.680 --> 00:04:08.240
I work on animal behavior, mostly primates, a few other animals too.
00:04:08.240 --> 00:04:13.520
Intelligence, emotions, social behavior, social cognition.
00:04:13.520 --> 00:04:16.560
I work mostly myself in captivity.
00:04:16.560 --> 00:04:19.199
I have many students who work in the field.
00:04:19.199 --> 00:04:22.399
My my work is has become more experimental.
00:04:22.399 --> 00:04:25.120
Initially, I was an observer of primate behavior.
00:04:25.120 --> 00:04:28.399
I worked with large colonies in large enclosures.
00:04:28.399 --> 00:04:37.360
But later I started doing experiments, bringing them in for half an hour or an hour into a room and testing them and then releasing them again.
00:04:37.360 --> 00:04:41.199
They usually live the animals that I worked with live in a social group usually.
00:04:41.199 --> 00:04:44.560
And to see more up close what their intelligence is.
00:04:44.560 --> 00:04:51.439
And as you may know, in the last 25 years, we have been mightily impressed by the intelligence of animals.
00:04:51.439 --> 00:05:02.319
Before that time, I grew up as a student where you were not allowed to talk about cognition or consciousness or emotions or any internal state was taboo.
00:05:02.480 --> 00:05:02.639
Yeah.
00:05:02.720 --> 00:05:06.879
And I grew up in the time that these terminology was not allowed.
00:05:06.879 --> 00:05:15.839
But now we have so much evidence for animal intelligence and really remarkable intelligence, that I think these taboos are being broken more and more.
00:05:16.160 --> 00:05:16.800
Yeah, absolutely.
00:05:16.800 --> 00:05:28.399
Your work's been completely central to pushing that behaviorist approach back and just giving us a richer and richer view of what the internal uh experiences of non-humans might be like.
00:05:28.399 --> 00:05:33.839
And it seems that the more we research, the more we look, the more richness we find.
00:05:33.839 --> 00:05:43.439
It's I can't think of a single instance where people have explored a non-human animal's experience and found that it was actually duller or simpler or more basic than we'd expected.
00:05:44.079 --> 00:05:49.360
No, and also I think what also happened is that we moved, I call it the ripple effect.
00:05:49.360 --> 00:05:51.680
We moved from the primates to other species.
00:05:51.680 --> 00:06:00.319
So usually these discoveries are first made with chimpanzees because they're similar to us, and we know how to test them because they are because they also similar.
00:06:00.319 --> 00:06:02.959
And so we compare them with children or whatever we do.
00:06:02.959 --> 00:06:26.959
But then we find remarkable capacities in chimpanzees, but within five years, usually someone finds them in Corvitz, uh, birds, yeah, or in dogs, or in elephants, and so many of these remarkable capacities, such as tool use, tool making, theory of mind, metacognition, all these things at some point are going to be found outside of the primates.
00:06:26.959 --> 00:06:33.360
And now we think that the octopus is a very smart animal, uh, or the dog is actually a very smart animal.
00:06:33.360 --> 00:06:36.160
And I think that we have expanded the view of that very much.
00:06:36.480 --> 00:06:37.120
Yeah, agree.
00:06:37.120 --> 00:06:40.399
And we'll come back to the implications for that later in the conversation.
00:06:40.399 --> 00:06:45.920
But where I like to start is the first of those two deep philosophical questions, what's real?
00:06:45.920 --> 00:06:58.639
And for many of my guests, that's a story about whether they grew up in a religious or a spiritual or a supernatural household and context, or one that was already quite naturalistic or atheistic or agnostic, and how their philosophy has shifted over time, if it has.
00:06:58.639 --> 00:07:07.199
So that you can wind the clock back as far as you like, but it'd be interesting to know where you started and where you are now in terms of naturalism versus supernaturalism.
00:07:07.839 --> 00:07:14.480
I grew up in a Catholic family in the Catholic south of the Netherlands, which at that time was really very Catholic.
00:07:14.480 --> 00:07:20.000
But when I became a student at 17 at the university, I basically dropped my religion.
00:07:20.000 --> 00:07:25.360
I I I I was never very convinced by um the the religion.
00:07:25.360 --> 00:07:30.800
I I I probably have internalized many of the values of the Catholic religion.
00:07:30.800 --> 00:07:35.600
That's very well possible, because I'm uh maybe I'm culturally Catholic, let's let's say.
00:07:35.600 --> 00:07:53.680
Yeah, but I didn't follow the religion much anymore, and became more interested in if my moral perspective was probably more based on uh how I feel about things, so sort of intuitive human perspective of how you treat others, how you treat animals, how you treat the world as a whole.
00:07:53.680 --> 00:08:00.879
So uh religion for me has always fascinated me because there was at some point, and I wrote a book about it.
00:08:00.879 --> 00:08:03.360
The book is called The Bonobo and the Atheist.
00:08:03.360 --> 00:08:08.639
And it's about how we can never completely discard religion.
00:08:08.639 --> 00:08:13.360
It's all human societies have religion, and there's a reason for that.
00:08:13.360 --> 00:08:22.079
I think humans need religion, uh, but I'm not sure they need the religions that we have now, the organized religions that we it could be something totally different, I assume.
00:08:22.079 --> 00:08:27.839
But all human societies have religions, and so that raises the question for the biologist: what is this need?
00:08:27.839 --> 00:08:31.920
Where does it come from and how did it evolve, and how does it serve society?
00:08:31.920 --> 00:08:38.080
Because you would assume that if all human societies have it, it serves a purpose in the society.
00:08:38.080 --> 00:08:47.279
So I'm fascinated by religion and why it exists, but I'm myself, I call myself actually an apatist in the sense that I'm not an atheist.
00:08:47.279 --> 00:08:56.240
An atheist believes that God doesn't exist, and I'm not an agnostic who doesn't know if God exists, an apatist, I don't particularly care if God exists.
00:08:56.240 --> 00:08:59.440
It's for me, it's not the most important problem in my life.
00:08:59.440 --> 00:09:05.679
And I'm not gonna get excited about his or her existence or non-existence.
00:09:05.679 --> 00:09:08.240
For me, that's not the main issue uh in life.
00:09:08.480 --> 00:09:08.639
Yeah.
00:09:08.639 --> 00:09:26.320
And as you dropped your religion, was it because of sort of facts and evidence and reason and logic, and looking at the inconsistencies or understanding other religions and thinking this doesn't seem true, or was it more some sort of dissonance with the ethical values you saw being played through Catholicism or a bit of both?
00:09:26.480 --> 00:09:32.879
Or yeah, I think in the Catholic religion, but I think it's true for every religion, there's a lot of hypocrisy.
00:09:32.879 --> 00:09:35.679
People who talk one way and act another way.
00:09:35.679 --> 00:09:40.639
The Catholic Church, we have seen how that goes, with their priests and their abuse.
00:09:40.639 --> 00:09:51.360
And so I think it's the hypocrisy is the disconnect between what you're supposed to believe and how people actually behave that really got me.
00:09:51.360 --> 00:09:54.399
And and I've never been convinced by these stories.
00:09:54.399 --> 00:10:05.759
And I've always felt that that Jesus was an inspiring figure because everything he said, at least according to the Bible and according to the church, I found interesting and worthwhile.
00:10:05.759 --> 00:10:10.960
But whether he's a real historical figure or not, that's not something I can figure figure out completely.
00:10:11.120 --> 00:10:11.519
Yeah.
00:10:11.519 --> 00:10:12.960
And was that transition?
00:10:12.960 --> 00:10:17.279
It doesn't sound like it was a difficult transition for you internally or personally.
00:10:17.279 --> 00:10:23.279
Was it were there challenges with family or society at large, or again, was it quite an easy, straightforward thing to do?
00:10:23.679 --> 00:10:29.919
Oh no, my parents were very unhappy about the whole situation, but I was part of a generation where everyone was doing that.
00:10:29.919 --> 00:10:33.360
So uh everyone was leaving their religion at that point.
00:10:33.360 --> 00:10:38.879
This was the 60s, where we students had long hair and protested everything.
00:10:38.879 --> 00:10:41.840
And that was also the time where we lost our religion.
00:10:41.840 --> 00:10:52.000
And even though I went to a university that at that time was called the Catholic University, even that university didn't do much on religion anymore at the time.
00:10:52.000 --> 00:10:57.440
And I say I think that was on the way out, and and that's a development that you see now in the US.
00:10:57.440 --> 00:11:06.000
I live now in the US, and when I came here, I felt it was an extremely religious country compared to the Netherlands, which is half of the people call themselves atheists.
00:11:06.159 --> 00:11:06.399
Yeah.
00:11:06.720 --> 00:11:14.320
But now we see that same development uh 50 years later coming to the US, where also many young people leave their religion.
00:11:14.320 --> 00:11:20.559
And I think again, uh hypocrisy is part of that story, is that people talk one way and act another way.
00:11:20.559 --> 00:11:23.840
And I think the young people don't buy into it anymore, you know?
00:11:23.840 --> 00:11:24.559
Yeah, yeah.
00:11:24.720 --> 00:11:44.750
And there's and I to me there's an interesting parallel between your thinking about the role of religion in morality and the role of evolution in morality, because you know, both of those forces have given us, to my mind, good ethics, rich veins of compassion and capacity to have empathy.
00:11:44.750 --> 00:11:46.830
But there are there is also downsides, right?
00:11:46.830 --> 00:11:55.950
There's tribalism, there's in-group-out-group distinctions, there's you know, myths and legends and burning in hell and various other problems, and sexism and homophobia and caste distinctions.
00:11:55.950 --> 00:12:00.430
And so it's quite an interesting balance that there's there's good and bad both here in both of those drivers.
00:12:00.430 --> 00:12:07.389
And it sounds one of the reasons some of my guests found it difficult to move away from a religious worldview, partly was the societal context.
00:12:07.389 --> 00:12:15.070
And some of my guests have had uh breathtakingly difficult journeys compared to yours and mine, which were pretty simple and straightforward, reasonably.
00:12:15.070 --> 00:12:22.350
But one of the reasons why some people sh hesitate about moving away from a religious worldview is because they are nervous they're going to lose some sort of moral foundation.
00:12:22.350 --> 00:12:29.149
And for you, you hinted already that I don't think you felt the gap there because you already had a sort of intuitive sense of morality.
00:12:29.149 --> 00:12:30.029
Is that fair to say?
00:12:30.029 --> 00:12:33.310
Because that's in a way, that's the second question is you what what does matter morally?
00:12:33.310 --> 00:12:36.509
And what's the basis for you asked what replaces to religion?
00:12:36.669 --> 00:12:36.830
Yeah.
00:12:37.230 --> 00:12:40.190
What's the basis for morality once you've put religion to one side?
00:12:40.509 --> 00:12:47.710
I think what religion does and sometimes does very well is provide narratives that support your moral intuitions.
00:12:47.710 --> 00:12:55.389
Let's say the story of the Good Samaritan, which is a real biblical story, which talks about compassion and how compassion is important.
00:12:55.389 --> 00:13:05.870
So I think what religion is good at is picking certain moral elements and amplifying them for you and making them visible for you.
00:13:05.870 --> 00:13:08.509
And I think that could be very helpful.
00:13:08.509 --> 00:13:11.950
I I personally don't think it's that important to me.
00:13:11.950 --> 00:13:16.830
And I've always felt that you get very far morally with compassion.
00:13:16.830 --> 00:13:22.830
So I'm a bit on the line of the Dalai Lama who says that all you need is basically empathy and compassion.
00:13:22.830 --> 00:13:24.750
Yeah, you need nothing else.
00:13:24.750 --> 00:13:28.750
You cannot go wrong with compassion, I think, morally.
00:13:28.750 --> 00:13:31.629
And so I find that a very interesting standpoint.
00:13:31.629 --> 00:13:35.789
And since I study empathy in animals, I've been thinking about that quite a bit.
00:13:35.789 --> 00:13:40.990
And I think without empathy, uh you could not build a moral system.
00:13:40.990 --> 00:13:48.830
If you wanted to build a human moral system and you leave empathy and compassion out, I don't think you go anywhere.
00:13:48.830 --> 00:13:55.710
Because empathy is what hooks you into other people, what makes you interested in them, interested in their situation.
00:13:55.710 --> 00:14:06.909
And if you leave that out, you you can be all have all the Kantian reasoning that you want to do, which the philosophers always say that morality is based on reasoning and logic.
00:14:06.909 --> 00:14:09.710
I don't think without empathy you get there.
00:14:09.710 --> 00:14:15.950
Because reasoning and logic can lead to all sorts of horrible things, also, and and it has done so in the past, of course.
00:14:16.269 --> 00:14:17.070
Yeah, absolutely.
00:14:17.070 --> 00:14:25.389
And I think you, I mean, your work has been absolutely central to uncovering the potential evolutionary basis for empathy and compassion and moral systems.
00:14:25.389 --> 00:14:31.870
And you've made it, I think, incontrovertibly clear that morality isn't something that humans have cooked up.
00:14:31.870 --> 00:14:37.149
Morality pre-exists, not just religions, but pre-exists humanity by many millions of years.
00:14:37.470 --> 00:14:40.909
So empathy and compassion are not new human inventions.
00:14:40.909 --> 00:14:46.830
Yeah they are mammalian, and you could even look beyond the mammals and find it in birds and some other species.
00:14:46.830 --> 00:14:49.310
Being interested in the situation of somebody else.
00:14:49.310 --> 00:15:04.750
So, for example, the the first tests of empathy in in children were done by an American psychologist who would go into human families and ask someone to cry, and then see how very young children would respond.
00:15:04.750 --> 00:15:11.789
And very young children who can barely walk, they walk up to this person and they touch them and they stroke their face and things like that.
00:15:11.789 --> 00:15:16.909
In the same study, she found that dogs did similar things.
00:15:16.909 --> 00:15:19.789
Dogs would also approach the person who's crying.
00:15:19.789 --> 00:15:22.509
And see, her name is Carolyn Zahn Maxler.
00:15:22.509 --> 00:15:29.149
She already told me that at that time that she did her studies, she thought, if the dogs do, that's also empathy.
00:15:29.149 --> 00:15:31.629
If the children do the same thing, basically.
00:15:31.629 --> 00:15:41.230
And compassion and being interested in the emotional state of somebody else is an old characteristic that we find in all the mammals.
00:15:41.230 --> 00:15:48.269
There are now rodent studies on empathy, certainly elephants, dolphins, the primates, uh, you find it everywhere.
00:15:48.269 --> 00:15:51.230
And so that's the basic capacity.
00:15:51.230 --> 00:15:55.710
And I think human moral systems are built around that.
00:15:55.710 --> 00:16:02.190
Is we go, of course, much further in in terms of how we justify our moral rules and so on.
00:16:02.190 --> 00:16:08.190
It it is much more complex in humans, but uh that basis is there, and that basis is very old.
00:16:08.590 --> 00:16:22.350
And it seems compelling to me that it it was it proved evolutionarily useful to be able to cooperate with other beings of your own kin and of your own species and groups, and potentially even broader than that.
00:16:22.350 --> 00:16:40.269
So you can see a technical rationale for why that capacity would have evolved, but it's interesting as well in that it wasn't just a sort of technical cooperation mechanism, it actually involves an ability to detect and infer the experience of another and then to feel some value in that.
00:16:40.430 --> 00:16:43.470
So it is almost uh and being affected by it.
00:16:43.470 --> 00:16:50.990
Yeah, so it's not just that you detect it, yeah, and that you that you understand it, but you but you are emotionally affected by it.
00:16:50.990 --> 00:17:08.829
Yeah, and so it's a capacity that we think started with maternal care, because uh a female mouse or a female elephant, uh, she needs to be sensitive to the emotional states of her offspring when they are distressed or when they're hungry or when they're cold or they are in danger.
00:17:08.829 --> 00:17:10.909
The mother needs to respond.
00:17:10.909 --> 00:17:19.789
And so that's also why we think empathy is more developed in females than males, why oxytocin is involved, which is a maternal hormone.
00:17:19.789 --> 00:17:24.029
Uh oxytocin in humans uh stimulates uh empathy.
00:17:24.029 --> 00:17:37.149
And from there, from that basis, it it expanded to other relationships, and and males can have empathy, and there's all sorts of relationships, non-parental relationships in which empathy can occur.
00:17:37.149 --> 00:17:48.429
But if you have a cooperative society, and many animals do, like elephants, wolves, uh lions, many animals have cooperative societies, you need to worry about your fellows.
00:17:48.429 --> 00:17:53.309
You hunt with them or you work with them or you rely on them.
00:17:53.309 --> 00:18:00.429
And so you need to be interested in this in their states when they're injured or uh hurt or something like that.
00:18:00.429 --> 00:18:05.389
And so uh empathy is a very adaptive trait for cooperative animals.
00:18:05.389 --> 00:18:13.149
They need it, and and so it's not some sort of luxury or some extra thing, it's an absolutely essential characteristic of uh cooperative animals.
00:18:13.469 --> 00:18:25.389
That's the I guess that's the legacy that's granted to us as a species, is we have largely the same sort of mental kit and capacity and you know, to some degree value systems as certainly most of the mammals, and maybe even broader.
00:18:25.389 --> 00:18:37.629
And one of the other side questions here is given sentientism focuses on the capacity of sentience, the capacity to experience things as a central characteristic, it doesn't specify what sentience is.
00:18:37.629 --> 00:18:42.109
So different people who call themselves sentientists will have radically different views about what it really is.
00:18:42.109 --> 00:18:52.669
My personal view is that it's an evolved class of information processing that happens to run in our neural substrate and does in many other animals as well.
00:18:52.669 --> 00:19:03.629
So that while some people might think it's something that's more mystical, or they might take a pan-psychist approach or think that consciousness and sentience are somehow distinct from matter and energy and information.
00:19:03.629 --> 00:19:08.269
My my personal view is it just is a class of information processing that runs in our neural substrate.
00:19:08.509 --> 00:19:25.069
So, as a tangent, do you have a view on you know what the essence of consciousness and sentience is, or or are you neutral about it's very difficult because consciousness, everyone talks about consciousness, but no one defines it, and no one tells me what it is.
00:19:25.069 --> 00:19:33.389
And and and if people ask me, do elephants have consciousness, I always say, You tell me what it is, and I can tell you if they have it.
00:19:33.389 --> 00:19:35.709
But but no one tells me what it is.
00:19:35.709 --> 00:19:40.990
And there's even a book by I think it's by Dennett, it's called Consciousness Explained.
00:19:40.990 --> 00:19:43.149
Yeah, and I've read that book and I still don't know.
00:19:43.149 --> 00:19:46.669
By the end, I still did not know what consciousness exactly was.
00:19:46.669 --> 00:19:59.709
And I know my own consciousness, I don't know yours, but I I do know my own consciousness.
00:19:59.709 --> 00:20:01.629
So there are certain things I cannot do.
00:20:01.629 --> 00:20:09.309
So, for example, I cannot plan a party for tomorrow uh with beer and music and friends.
00:20:09.309 --> 00:20:14.109
I cannot make the plans for that without consciously thinking about that.
00:20:14.109 --> 00:20:18.429
And we now know from studies on animals that they plan.
00:20:18.429 --> 00:20:21.389
We we we have these studies of it's called time travel.
00:20:21.389 --> 00:20:22.750
Can they look into the future?
00:20:22.750 --> 00:20:24.269
Can they look into the past?
00:20:24.269 --> 00:20:28.909
And we know from studies where you give them tools that they can only use the next day or some.
00:20:28.909 --> 00:20:38.990
There's many studies now that have been done that demonstrate that some animals with large brains, uh certain birds and certain primates, they can plan ahead.
00:20:38.990 --> 00:20:47.469
Now, I would be very curious if they can do something without consciousness that we for which we have to use our consciousness.
00:20:47.469 --> 00:20:49.869
That would be unusual, in my opinion.
00:20:49.869 --> 00:20:56.189
And so I assume that since they have these capacities, they must have the same sort of consciousness going on.
00:20:56.189 --> 00:20:59.229
Sentence for me is a much broader concept.
00:20:59.229 --> 00:21:01.869
Sentence is that you can experience things.
00:21:02.029 --> 00:21:02.349
Yeah.
00:21:02.669 --> 00:21:08.669
I I would not even exclude that in plants necessarily, even though they have no nervous system.
00:21:08.669 --> 00:21:11.309
And it is hard to imagine how that would work.
00:21:11.309 --> 00:21:21.229
But certainly, all animals with brains they must have experiences because they have bodies that they need to react when they lose a leg or something.
00:21:21.229 --> 00:21:23.469
They need to have experiences.
00:21:23.469 --> 00:21:28.349
And maybe some of them are extremely simple, like only pain and pleasure.
00:21:28.349 --> 00:21:30.589
That's that those are the basic ones, of course.
00:21:30.589 --> 00:21:34.429
But yeah, they it's unlikely that they have no experiences.
00:21:34.429 --> 00:21:34.669
Yeah.
00:21:34.669 --> 00:21:37.149
Because they have bodies that they need to take care of.
00:21:37.469 --> 00:21:37.629
Agree.
00:21:38.829 --> 00:21:44.269
So they must have they must be able to be thirsty and hungry, which are experiences.
00:21:44.269 --> 00:21:47.549
So sentience for me is a much broader concept.
00:21:47.549 --> 00:21:51.309
And and I assume that in so many species.
00:21:51.309 --> 00:21:51.629
Yeah.
00:21:51.789 --> 00:21:52.909
And I share that view as well.
00:21:52.909 --> 00:21:55.309
And that's another thing that sentientism itself is neutral on.
00:21:55.309 --> 00:21:58.189
It doesn't have a list and say, here's the list of sentient species.
00:21:58.189 --> 00:21:59.309
It just says here's the definition.
00:21:59.309 --> 00:22:01.469
It's the capacity to have experiences and follow the science.
00:22:01.469 --> 00:22:10.109
And my again, people will disagree with me here, but my personal view is fairly traditional, in that I think the vast majority of animal species are sentient.
00:22:10.109 --> 00:22:13.949
You might have an argument about a sea sponge that, again, has no nervous system at all.
00:22:13.949 --> 00:22:29.149
But I think there's an interesting distinction to draw between an entity like a plant, which I think of more as analogous to a thermostat, which has information capacity that enables it to sense and information capacity that drives motor responses or different behavior or moving towards the sun.
00:22:29.149 --> 00:22:35.949
But as far as I'm aware, there isn't any additional information processing that could be, if you like, running the awareness.
00:22:35.949 --> 00:22:50.109
Whereas it my understanding of most uh human and animal anatomy is that we have the perception, we have the motor stuff, but there's also some other processing going on, which seems to be, you know, super correlated with uh sentient experience as well.
00:22:50.109 --> 00:22:51.069
But again, who knows?
00:22:51.069 --> 00:22:51.949
There's more research to be done.
00:22:52.189 --> 00:22:57.789
Yeah, there are animals without brains, like some mollusks, let's say oysters and and mussels.
00:22:57.789 --> 00:23:02.349
And so so they would, in your view, be more at the plant level, then I suppose.
00:23:02.750 --> 00:23:04.189
So do we, certainly, yeah.
00:23:04.829 --> 00:23:05.949
Yeah, so I don't know.
00:23:05.949 --> 00:23:08.589
I I don't want to exclude anything and and plants.
00:23:08.589 --> 00:23:14.349
We haven't studied plants to the degree that I would be very confident and say they have absolutely no sentience.
00:23:14.349 --> 00:23:16.029
I I would leave that question open.
00:23:16.029 --> 00:23:16.189
Yeah.
00:23:16.429 --> 00:23:16.909
Yeah, yeah.
00:23:16.909 --> 00:23:18.429
I think that's an important distinction.
00:23:18.429 --> 00:23:23.869
And given the potential suffering we might cause if we get these assessments wrong, it makes sense to be prudent as well.
00:23:23.869 --> 00:23:31.229
So I think provisional probabilistic beliefs, but also prudent and you know, give certain things the benefit of the doubt if we think they might be able to experience suffering.
00:23:31.229 --> 00:23:38.509
Um, so that I think there's a really compelling story about the the origins of morality and where they came from and the evolutionary rationale for them.
00:23:38.509 --> 00:23:43.869
And that's if you like the baseline for our own morality and many of our intuitions as well.
00:23:43.869 --> 00:23:48.829
Um, but in a sense, I guess evolution and nature are amoral, really.
00:23:48.829 --> 00:23:54.029
They there's nothing that cares about good or bad morally in the same way as we do.
00:23:54.029 --> 00:24:04.909
And so while there's genuine empathy and compassion, there's also in-group, out-group tribalism and you know, competition and aggression and all of the other things, many of which you've studied as well.
00:24:04.909 --> 00:24:20.509
So to really think about ethics, we need to go beyond a natural story about what we've been gifted and say, okay, as humans, we have the capacity to think in a richer way about what we think good and bad are and what right and wrong are.
00:24:20.509 --> 00:24:24.589
And again, I think you've given a very clear answer that the center of that for you is compassion.
00:24:24.589 --> 00:24:32.269
It's this sense of recognizing the experiences of others and having a motivation to wanting not to do needless harm and wanting to help them.
00:24:32.269 --> 00:24:39.549
Is that a reasonable summary of what you think morality is when you go beyond purely the evolved basis of or the natural?
00:24:40.029 --> 00:24:44.990
Yeah, morality has to go beyond because empathy is actually very parochial.
00:24:44.990 --> 00:24:56.349
Compassion is a bit more broad-minded, but our empathy responses, and the same is true for other species, are directed to individuals who are similar and familiar, usually.
00:24:56.589 --> 00:24:56.750
Yeah.
00:24:56.990 --> 00:24:58.269
So we're very biased.
00:24:58.269 --> 00:25:01.309
The studies on the rodents indicate the same thing.
00:25:01.309 --> 00:25:03.949
Empathy is a biased system.
00:25:03.949 --> 00:25:09.789
I I already mentioned maternal care, which is, of course, the female is very worried about her own offspring.
00:25:09.789 --> 00:25:12.269
She's not necessarily worried about somebody else's offspring.
00:25:12.269 --> 00:25:14.029
It's a very biased system.
00:25:14.029 --> 00:25:18.669
And if you want to turn that into morality, you have to add elements to it.
00:25:18.669 --> 00:25:24.509
So, for example, in humans, I find it so interesting that we have the Geneva Conventions.
00:25:24.509 --> 00:25:29.709
The Geneva Convention tells us to worry about our enemies.
00:25:29.709 --> 00:25:33.069
During war, we need to treat our enemies.
00:25:33.069 --> 00:25:47.069
We don't need to treat them perfectly well, but we need to respect them to some degree, which is such an interesting concept because I don't think chimpanzees or other species would have that concept of thinking about your enemies are to be eliminated.
00:25:47.069 --> 00:25:51.069
And of course, for the longest time in human history, that's exactly what we did.
00:25:51.069 --> 00:25:54.189
We eradicated the enemy, we didn't worry about them at all.
00:25:54.349 --> 00:25:57.149
Yeah, we could not excluded them from moral consideration.
00:25:57.149 --> 00:25:57.949
They were outside.
00:25:58.589 --> 00:25:59.869
They didn't exist in there.
00:25:59.869 --> 00:26:05.869
And so we we have expanded our morality and our range of empathy, so to speak.
00:26:05.869 --> 00:26:10.909
And that's a very interesting process that we are capable of because of our mental powers.
00:26:10.909 --> 00:26:13.709
And I don't see much of that in the animal kingdom.
00:26:13.709 --> 00:26:19.389
So we still use these original capacities of empathy, but we are able to mentally expand them.
00:26:19.389 --> 00:26:30.109
And that's actually when you talk about how we treat other species, that's a bit what we're doing at the moment with other species, is that they were also not part of moral considerations for the longest time.
00:26:30.269 --> 00:26:30.429
Yeah.
00:26:30.509 --> 00:26:36.269
But now we say we should start worrying about them because they also deserve some consideration.
00:26:36.269 --> 00:26:40.990
And so that's a sort of a cognitive layer that we put on top of empathy.
00:26:41.229 --> 00:26:42.109
Yeah, absolutely.
00:26:42.109 --> 00:26:44.829
And that's the topic we'll come on to next.
00:26:44.829 --> 00:27:01.229
My previous guest, actually, Peter Watts, the sci-fi author, amazing mind, but he mentioned the upside and the downside of oxytocin, because as you you mentioned it already, that people tend to think of it as the sort of warm, cuddly, familial compassion or empathy substance, if you like.
00:27:01.229 --> 00:27:05.869
But is it true that it also accentuates outgroup tribalism as well?
00:27:05.949 --> 00:27:12.589
So it's again Yeah, there was a time where we said you just spray oxytocin in a room and everyone will love everybody.
00:27:12.589 --> 00:27:12.829
Yeah.
00:27:12.829 --> 00:27:19.869
And now we think, um, well, be careful with oxytocin because there may be certain people that you start hating at that moment.
00:27:20.269 --> 00:27:20.829
Yeah, absolutely.
00:27:20.829 --> 00:27:23.709
We might need to switch to MDMA and the water supply instead, maybe.
00:27:23.709 --> 00:27:26.269
But that's the next central question in a way, because I think you're right.
00:27:26.269 --> 00:27:29.789
This centering the moral system on compassion is critically important.
00:27:29.789 --> 00:27:49.390
But the next question, obviously, is okay, who warrants compassion and who warrants moral consideration?
00:27:49.390 --> 00:28:01.309
And as you said, I guess humans have gone through a patchy, incomplete, difficult, but I think overall positive process of broadening moral consideration within our own species.
00:28:01.309 --> 00:28:04.109
And there are so many problems still to work on there.
00:28:04.109 --> 00:28:18.269
But the very fact that after the Second World War, most countries signed up to a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that, at least in concept, said all humans matter was you know a radically positive step given human history.
00:28:18.670 --> 00:28:21.230
So that model you have to be careful.
00:28:21.230 --> 00:28:24.990
We don't want indiscriminate compassion.
00:28:24.990 --> 00:28:28.509
We also want commitments in in human society.
00:28:28.509 --> 00:28:36.029
Let's say yeah, I'm the father of a family and there's a hunger, there's hunger all around us, and I find a bread.
00:28:36.029 --> 00:28:37.950
It's a bit like what is this musical?
00:28:37.950 --> 00:28:40.029
There's this musical, French musical.
00:28:40.029 --> 00:28:41.309
I'm forgetting now.
00:28:41.309 --> 00:28:44.829
But let's say I find the bread and I could bring it to my family.
00:28:44.829 --> 00:28:46.670
But Le Miserable.
00:28:46.670 --> 00:28:48.029
Yeah, Le Miserable.
00:28:48.029 --> 00:28:56.990
Yeah, so I could bring it to my family, but I'm a sort of randomly altruistic, and I give the bread away in the street to hungry children or something.
00:28:56.990 --> 00:29:01.869
And then I come home and I tell my family, well, I had a bread, but I gave it away.
00:29:01.869 --> 00:29:12.589
I I think my family would be very unhappy with me and and and on moral grounds, because I have an obligation to my family first before anybody else.
00:29:12.750 --> 00:29:12.990
Yeah.
00:29:13.150 --> 00:29:24.349
And so we do expect in human moral systems some commitment to the in-group versus the out-group, or to your family versus the non-family, or your friends versus non-friends.
00:29:24.349 --> 00:29:29.069
So we cannot just do away with that, because that's part of our moral fabric.
00:29:29.069 --> 00:29:40.589
The only thing that we're doing at the moment is expanding the moral fabric, and I completely agree that we need to do that, but you cannot do it by abandoning these commitments that we have.
00:29:40.829 --> 00:29:41.710
Yeah, I agree.
00:29:41.710 --> 00:29:48.029
And I think that's that's partly why, again, this idea of sentientism is irritatingly neutral on so many things, right?
00:29:48.029 --> 00:29:57.950
But it doesn't say this is how you should prioritize, and it doesn't say how you should resolve conflicts of interest or difficult situations like whether you should give the bread to a stranger or to your family.
00:29:57.950 --> 00:29:59.309
It doesn't resolve those things.
00:29:59.309 --> 00:30:17.710
It just says let's at least set the boundary of our moral consideration in the right place, such that you would still prioritize within that, of course, as you say, family first, maybe, or in different ways, but at least you wouldn't exclude any relevant being from your moral considerations, such that you would see needlessly harming or killing it as a negative.
00:30:17.710 --> 00:30:18.430
So it's an inclusion.
00:30:18.430 --> 00:30:22.430
But it doesn't, you know, it still leaves plenty of flexibility and most of philosophy.
00:30:22.829 --> 00:30:28.430
So there's there's still a hierarchy or a priority, as you say, there's still priorities within that system.
00:30:28.750 --> 00:30:28.910
Yeah.
00:30:28.910 --> 00:30:39.950
So some people some people would like to push for a much more radically egalitarian approach, but I I agree with you personally that you run into some very difficult problems very quickly.
00:30:39.950 --> 00:30:48.990
And so one of the other interesting things that would be good to get your story around is we've talked already about we're trying to broaden our moral consideration to humans.
00:30:48.990 --> 00:30:53.789
You've mentioned we're working on trying to do that across the species boundary and extending that.
00:30:53.789 --> 00:31:00.910
And your work has been central to that because it's helped people, I think, break through this anthropocentrism that only humans have experiences.
00:31:00.910 --> 00:31:02.750
And there was a religious version of that, of course.
00:31:02.750 --> 00:31:06.750
Humans are made of the image of God, humans have souls, animals don't, we're given dominion over them.
00:31:06.750 --> 00:31:15.710
But there's also been a non-religious approach to that as well, which still privileges humans because we have certain advanced capacities or intellectual capabilities.
00:31:15.710 --> 00:31:19.549
Dolphins haven't built any skyscrapers, so humans must be worth more.
00:31:19.549 --> 00:31:23.629
So there's a there's a non-religious way of privileging humans as well.
00:31:23.629 --> 00:31:43.069
And your work's really been helping to break those boundaries down because it's helped people understand we have an common evolutionary history, we often have a common information processing architecture, we often have common behavior and communications, and it just makes sense to infer that there is sentience at least in a much broader range of beings.
00:31:43.069 --> 00:31:49.390
But in terms of setting your own moral considerability boundary, how have you gone through that journey so far in your life and where are you up to?
00:31:49.390 --> 00:31:54.589
Where, you know, which be which types of beings do you think do warrant moral consideration?
00:31:55.069 --> 00:31:58.349
Yeah, I find that's a very subjective process in a way.
00:31:58.349 --> 00:32:05.230
We tend to, for example, we tend to value more mammals than non-mammals in general.
00:32:05.230 --> 00:32:23.309
We tend to value cuddly mammals more than non-cuddly mammals in the sense that we fall for these species, especially the primates and the dogs and the dolphins, the species that we are attracted to, and species that we are not attracted to, we we don't particularly care about.
00:32:23.309 --> 00:32:26.109
And so that's but we're very biased in that system.
00:32:26.109 --> 00:32:29.710
And same thing with animals that we eat or don't eat.
00:32:29.710 --> 00:32:40.589
So we care about dogs in the West, and we don't care about pigs, whereas from a perspective of the biologist, there's not much of a difference um uh between those two.
00:32:40.589 --> 00:32:51.309
Yeah, we are we are very biased in these in these things, partly based on our sort of innate responses to what is attractive and what is not attractive to us.
00:32:51.309 --> 00:32:53.950
So we don't particularly care about fish.
00:32:53.950 --> 00:32:56.670
Fish, as you see, have a big tank behind me.
00:32:56.670 --> 00:33:05.629
I'm a very big fan of fish, but fish don't scream if you kill them, and so we think they probably have no pain, or people have that kind of thinking.
00:33:05.629 --> 00:33:08.910
Yeah, so we're very penetrated in that regard.
00:33:09.230 --> 00:33:09.869
And I think you're right.
00:33:09.869 --> 00:33:16.990
There is there are some and there are some reasonably obvious things about how easy it is for us to identify with, you know, easier to identify with mammals than some others.
00:33:16.990 --> 00:33:20.829
Some with some things it's more about distance or lack of familiarity.
00:33:20.829 --> 00:33:23.549
And with some other instances, it's more arbitrary than that.
00:33:23.549 --> 00:33:26.029
It's more about how we want to interact with them.
00:33:26.029 --> 00:33:31.629
The companion animals, of course, of all types warrant very obvious direct moral consideration.
00:33:31.629 --> 00:33:35.390
You know, charismatic wildlife, we enjoy watching them on the television.
00:33:35.390 --> 00:33:41.710
We're quite keen for them to survive and and thrive, and uh, particularly if they're endangered, we suddenly value them more.
00:33:41.869 --> 00:33:51.390
But the vast sometimes these moral considerations are so strange because uh I have this Facebook site on which I very often place uh videos.
00:33:51.390 --> 00:34:06.430
And if you place a video of, let's say, uh a lion killing an antelope, everyone is for the antelope, everyone uh roots for the antelope, but the lion has to live, and so that's a very strange moral reaction that we have.
00:34:06.430 --> 00:34:12.989
We want the antelope to live, but the the lion uh is hungry and needs to eat.
00:34:12.989 --> 00:34:21.150
So we have we we project our morality on nature in a way that sometimes is really problematic, in my view.
00:34:21.549 --> 00:34:22.269
Yeah, agree.
00:34:22.269 --> 00:34:37.470
And one of the other interesting things that I find challenging in in many of my conversations is, in a sense, I think if you spoke to the average human, most people they would recognise that these categories we place non-human animals in are somewhat arbitrary.
00:34:37.470 --> 00:34:46.990
And they would also, I think, say they wouldn't really want to needlessly cause suffering, even for some of the neglected wild animals that normally get ignored, or even for farmed animals.
00:34:46.990 --> 00:34:51.310
You most put me most people in a room with a pig and they wouldn't want to harm it, particularly once they got to know it.
00:34:51.310 --> 00:34:57.310
So, in a way, there's a sort of latent moral baseline of agreement I think most people would have with us.
00:34:57.310 --> 00:35:02.670
But where most of us fail is taking through the practical implications of that thinking as well.
00:35:02.670 --> 00:35:06.190
And is that how far have you explored that journey?
00:35:06.190 --> 00:35:11.390
Because personally, I do try and grant moral consideration to all sentient beings.
00:35:11.390 --> 00:35:13.550
That doesn't mean that's equal moral consideration.
00:35:13.550 --> 00:35:15.710
I recognise there are different degrees and levels.
00:35:15.710 --> 00:35:27.070
You wouldn't value a chicken over a human, but at the same time, I I would value them all enough to say, look, I don't want to needlessly cause suffering or death to them for my taste preferences, for example.
00:35:27.070 --> 00:35:29.870
Therefore, you know, I don't want to participate in animal farming.
00:35:30.190 --> 00:35:41.390
I struggled with that in my professional work because I work with captive animals and I I'm a scientist, and I'm surrounded by medical scientists who do all sorts of things to animals.
00:35:41.390 --> 00:35:48.110
That I I don't I've never done an invasive study on animals in the sense that I've opened them or hurt them or things like that.
00:35:48.110 --> 00:35:58.590
And and I've always felt that since my research is not on life-threatening problems like cancer or viruses or uh I work on intelligence and behavior.
00:35:58.590 --> 00:36:07.710
I I've always felt I have no justification to do anything that's harmful, and I've always done my experiments with the animals in a way that was done on a volunteer basis.
00:36:07.710 --> 00:36:09.870
If they wanted to do it, they could do it.
00:36:09.870 --> 00:36:13.310
And if they didn't want to do it, I would not force them into anything.
00:36:13.310 --> 00:36:22.190
And so I've always done these non-invasive studies on and usually on animals that most of the time live in very pleasant circumstances.
00:36:22.190 --> 00:36:28.350
So I've always struggled with that, being surrounded by scientists who did other things with animals.
00:36:28.510 --> 00:36:28.830
Yeah.
00:36:29.230 --> 00:36:32.430
And to what degree are they justified or not?
00:36:32.430 --> 00:36:38.270
So in science, if it is a life-threatening problem, like when Ebola came along.
00:36:38.270 --> 00:36:46.430
I don't know if you remember when Ebola came along, there were projections that 200 million people might die of Ebola.
00:36:46.430 --> 00:36:50.190
That's much more than we have at the moment with the COVID crisis.
00:36:50.190 --> 00:36:53.710
So Ebola was seen as an incredible problem.
00:36:53.710 --> 00:37:00.910
And Ebola was fought with a vaccine, and I think monkeys were involved in the development of that vaccine.
00:37:00.910 --> 00:37:12.750
And so for me, that kind of research is a different kind of research than, let's say, someone who's curious about how the brain works and does some invasive study on the brain.
00:37:12.750 --> 00:37:22.990
Because I think with the brain, we are now reaching a point, and this is happening at certain places in the world, that we can do non-invasive studies on the brain, as we do with humans.
00:37:22.990 --> 00:37:31.390
I can put you in a scanner and I can study your brain and how it functions in a brain scanner, and you come out alive without any problems.
00:37:31.390 --> 00:37:38.510
And we we are doing that with dogs at the moment, and people are training primates on non-invasive neuroscience.
00:37:38.510 --> 00:37:43.790
And I think that's the direction, since it is not a life-threatening problem that we're talking about.
00:37:43.790 --> 00:37:46.110
I feel that's the direction we need to go.
00:37:46.110 --> 00:37:52.430
Non-invasive neuroscience on animals that is not harmful and that they can do on a volunteer basis, basically.
00:37:52.430 --> 00:37:56.270
So, yeah, I'm struggling with these issues in my profession.
00:37:56.670 --> 00:38:04.350
And I had a fascinating conversation with Aisha Aktar recently, who's who's working to essentially replace all animal testing research.
00:38:04.350 --> 00:38:13.470
And I think even she would recognize that there are some really difficult trade-offs we have to take where you know there's harm being done, but there's an overwhelming benefit.
00:38:13.470 --> 00:38:19.310
But I guess her story was that the vast amount of research that's going on isn't really of that type.
00:38:19.310 --> 00:38:26.510
There's a vast tranche of basic research that aren't required at all, and there are some things like LP50 testing and so on, that there's just no point.
00:38:26.590 --> 00:38:38.110
And yeah, that that's something that's something to be discussed with a medical scientist to see how much of that is really essential or non-essential.
00:38:38.110 --> 00:38:47.870
Yeah, I I find that hard to judge, but but I do agree there is probably quite a bit of medical research that could be done differently.
00:38:47.870 --> 00:38:52.110
Uh may maybe you could not, maybe we still need it, but it could be done differently.
00:38:52.110 --> 00:38:54.990
Let's say I think that's an open discussion that we need to have.
00:38:55.390 --> 00:39:08.350
Now, for me, farming and food and so on is an easier challenge to resolve because there the needs that we're meeting are almost exclusively taste preferences and social norms.
00:39:08.350 --> 00:39:14.990
There aren't many people who are really in a survival setting, it's a life or death or a deep human health situation.
00:39:15.550 --> 00:39:18.190
I think it used to probably be like that.
00:39:18.190 --> 00:39:23.310
People used to be dependent on animal meat, not large quantities, but some of it.
00:39:23.310 --> 00:39:31.070
But yeah, that equation has changed because of our better knowledge of nutrition, our history as humans, long history.
00:39:31.070 --> 00:39:42.990
Is probably that because if you look at the literature on the brain expansion of the human species, we we got much bigger brains than other primates, is that meat and meat products were probably part of that.
00:39:42.990 --> 00:39:55.550
We have a long history of being omnivores, and and our gut system and and and even our psychology, because there's cooperative hunting involved, I think was shaped by that.
00:39:55.550 --> 00:40:04.750
So we have a long history as omnivores, but we have now reached a stage of knowledge where uh it's not strictly necessary anymore.
00:40:04.750 --> 00:40:08.030
So it's an interesting transition that we're going through at the moment.
00:40:08.030 --> 00:40:13.230
My own view on that is that uh I object to the treatment of animals.
00:40:13.230 --> 00:40:20.190
I'm not personally opposed to eating animals, but I object to how the animals that we eat are being treated.
00:40:20.190 --> 00:40:29.630
The the agricultural industry is a mass industry that locks up animals in very small spaces and doesn't treat them very well.
00:40:29.630 --> 00:40:31.950
And I think that has to change.
00:40:31.950 --> 00:40:35.310
And in order to change that, yeah, there has to be less meat consumption.
00:40:35.310 --> 00:40:40.590
You cannot change that system having the same amount of meat consumption that we do.
00:40:40.590 --> 00:40:43.710
So something needs to happen.
00:40:43.950 --> 00:40:44.190
Yeah.
00:40:44.190 --> 00:40:51.710
And there's interestingly strong common ground between vegans like me and omnivores around factory farming and intensive farming.
00:40:51.710 --> 00:41:05.070
There's interesting surveys that show there's an enormous ground to have a public opinion that you know rejects the idea of intensive factory farming because of the conditions and because of the environmental impact and arguably the risk to human health through zoonosis and antimicrobialism.
00:41:05.870 --> 00:41:06.830
How big is that movement?
00:41:06.830 --> 00:41:10.110
I think I think among young people that's a strong movement.
00:41:10.110 --> 00:41:15.790
I still think I'm living in the US, that the majority of people has no trouble with it.
00:41:15.790 --> 00:41:26.110
Of course, as soon as you take them into a big farm, they will notice they will notice the problem and they will be objecting to the problem.
00:41:26.110 --> 00:41:30.190
Most of the time they they put their blinders on and they don't think about it.
00:41:30.430 --> 00:41:31.230
And I think that's it.
00:41:31.230 --> 00:41:33.710
The main reason is that I did this for many years myself, right?
00:41:33.710 --> 00:41:41.710
It's been a slow journey of realization, partly inspired through work like yours that's helped me understand you know what it might be like to be one of these animals.
00:41:41.710 --> 00:41:49.950
But the cultural resonance we have is so rich and deep, it has an identity resonance as well, partly because of the you know, ancient human history.
00:41:49.950 --> 00:41:51.470
The social norms are very strong.
00:41:51.470 --> 00:41:52.590
So I think you're right.
00:41:52.590 --> 00:41:58.830
It for most people it's really about cognitive dissonance and just deliberately not thinking about the reality of it and putting it to one side now.
00:41:59.150 --> 00:42:12.270
So let me tell you what I think is a solution to this is that I I've always felt that what we need in the in the supermarkets, in the meat department, we need a scan bar on each piece of meat that you buy.
00:42:12.270 --> 00:42:19.150
That if you you put it on your cell phone, you can see in a video or photos how these animals lived.
00:42:19.150 --> 00:42:28.270
And it should be done by an independent agency, not by the farmers, but an independent agency goes there and films the conditions.
00:42:28.270 --> 00:42:34.430
And so then when you buy a piece of meat in the supermarket, you have your choices to make.
00:42:34.430 --> 00:42:38.830
Do I want meat from animals who lived in this particular condition?
00:42:38.830 --> 00:42:39.870
Yes or no?
00:42:39.870 --> 00:42:40.190
Yeah.
00:42:40.190 --> 00:42:52.110
I think that would certainly for um people who are who are sensitive to this issue, which is a growing group of people, that would facilitate their choices and would make their choices more ethical than they were before.
00:42:52.110 --> 00:42:54.430
But we don't get the right information.
00:42:54.430 --> 00:43:02.110
We get some sort of label on these animals like bio chicken or whatever, and we really don't know what that means.
00:43:02.110 --> 00:43:04.350
It's totally unreliable from what I can tell.
00:43:04.670 --> 00:43:09.390
Pictures of happy cows and smiling chickens and pigs trotting happily to the slaughterhouse.
00:43:09.390 --> 00:43:10.510
But I like the idea.
00:43:10.510 --> 00:43:13.710
I think that just that clarity and transparency would really help.
00:43:13.710 --> 00:43:19.790
And I think one central tragedy is that nearly all meat, dairy, and egg products do come from factory farm.
00:43:19.790 --> 00:43:23.950
So even the people that object to factory farm still buy from them on pretty much on a daily basis.
00:43:23.950 --> 00:43:26.990
And I think in the States it's way over 95%.
00:43:26.990 --> 00:43:28.910
So that's one challenge, is okay.
00:43:28.910 --> 00:43:32.910
Many people disagree with factory farming, but it's that is the default nearly everywhere.
00:43:32.910 --> 00:43:52.430
But I think the interest one other interesting thing is that those little videos, even of the supposedly non-factory farms, would also be pretty shocking to people because even in free-range organic high welfare situations, you still have calf separation, you still have they all end up in the slaughterhouse at a very early stage of their lives, chicks are still macerated.
00:43:52.430 --> 00:44:07.950
So I think it would one of the interesting shifts would be one, I think yes, it would double down on the rejection of factory farming, but I think the other thing would be it would be much harder to do the sort of ethics washing around supposedly high welfare animal farming as well.
00:44:07.950 --> 00:44:08.830
Yeah, we'll see.
00:44:08.830 --> 00:44:22.590
And I think the other thing that will help, although it frustrates me that so many people seem to be waiting for this, is the technological solutions for clean meats and cultivated meats and the plant-based meats, where I think the alternatives in some fields are already really compelling.
00:44:22.670 --> 00:44:29.070
And if that happens, that if that happens, that solves all the problems because that solves ecological problems.
00:44:29.070 --> 00:44:32.670
So then we have both the moral and the ecological solved.
00:44:32.670 --> 00:44:36.910
I myself, I I eat barely any mammals anymore.
00:44:36.910 --> 00:44:38.670
I've reduced my meat intake.
00:44:38.670 --> 00:44:41.150
There's also many days now that I eat vegetarian.
00:44:41.150 --> 00:44:42.350
It's never been easy.
00:44:42.350 --> 00:44:50.110
But I but I'm not for me, it's not the eating part, it's it's the treatment, the treatment of animals that is the issue for me.
00:44:50.110 --> 00:44:53.470
Yeah, and and in that regard, we have gone completely wrong.
00:44:53.470 --> 00:44:55.390
And actually, I'm from the Netherlands.
00:44:55.390 --> 00:45:08.190
Um in the Netherlands, I think that's where these very high-intensity farms started, and we still have many of them because the Netherlands is a very big exporter of meat, even though it's a very small country.
00:45:08.190 --> 00:45:11.470
And so it's very high-intensity stuff that they're doing there.
00:45:11.470 --> 00:45:13.070
And I don't agree with that.
00:45:13.070 --> 00:45:14.510
I think we need to get rid of that.
00:45:14.750 --> 00:45:17.470
Yeah, I think many people, an increasing number of people agree with you.
00:45:17.470 --> 00:45:18.670
And and I agree as well.
00:45:18.670 --> 00:45:27.150
I guess I just take it to that next stage where to me I'm also concerned about their treatment and the treatment of their families in the process of the slaughter, which is where it ends up.
00:45:27.150 --> 00:45:36.030
And I and I also think that even if you had a you know theoretical, almost painless death under anesthetic, I would still have a moral objection to that as I would for humans as well.
00:45:36.030 --> 00:45:40.830
Whereas I think other people would say if it's a painless death and they've had a happy life, that's fair enough.
00:45:40.830 --> 00:45:42.510
I would actually still go that next step.
00:45:42.510 --> 00:45:43.630
Others disagree.
00:45:43.630 --> 00:45:44.190
Yeah.
00:45:44.190 --> 00:45:50.750
So the final question that I'd like to come on to in the time we've got left available is your thoughts about the future.
00:45:50.750 --> 00:45:59.390
You've done amazing work talking about how we can take our morality into a more compassionate place beyond the structures of traditional religion.
00:45:59.390 --> 00:46:05.790
You've helped us break the species boundary and recognize that many non-humans have experiences too that mean something.
00:46:05.790 --> 00:46:18.830
With some of my guests, I guess I asked them to take a sort of utopian view where I said, look, if we could magically persuade most of the humans on the planet to be more generously compassionate and to take a more naturalistic approach to understanding the world, because I think we need both of those things.
00:46:18.830 --> 00:46:20.990
Either is by itself insufficient.
00:46:20.990 --> 00:46:23.950
What could that sort of sci-fi future look like?
00:46:23.950 --> 00:46:31.630
So I'd be interested in your view long term, but also your thoughts about more immediate priorities and things we can try and do to make the world better.
00:46:31.950 --> 00:46:36.910
Yeah, I would so much like that we are less in-group, out-group driven as humans.
00:46:36.910 --> 00:46:38.510
I'm talking about humans now.
00:46:38.510 --> 00:46:44.750
We dice and slice, we we are a symbolic species, and and that means that we put labels on everything.
00:46:44.750 --> 00:46:52.590
And either heterosexual or homosexual, or you are black or you're white, and we have all these labels.
00:46:52.670 --> 00:46:52.990
Yeah.
00:46:53.230 --> 00:46:55.790
And and or you're a man and a woman.
00:46:55.790 --> 00:46:56.750
That's another one.
00:46:56.750 --> 00:47:07.310
We put these labels on everyone, and everyone who falls between the cracks, or who doesn't easily fit one of these pigeonholes, we object to that.
00:47:07.310 --> 00:47:16.910
So, for example, trans people, we object to that, or uh mixed race people are categorized as either one or the other.
00:47:16.910 --> 00:47:19.870
We don't like the ambiguities, and we love it.
00:47:19.870 --> 00:47:26.190
Yeah, nature is full of ambiguities, and we're very intolerant in many ways.
00:47:26.190 --> 00:47:29.790
And so I think that's the big problem in the world today.
00:47:29.790 --> 00:47:42.590
It's both a problem within societies where certain people are not tolerated within the society, and and it's certainly a problem also between societies when we get immigrants that come from elsewhere and don't look like us and so on.
00:47:42.590 --> 00:47:44.270
I think that that's a terrible problem.
00:47:44.270 --> 00:47:53.310
And I don't know what the solution is because I think we humans are unfortunately programmed to be in-group, out-group animals, like most animals are actually.
00:47:53.630 --> 00:47:55.310
So do you think we need some external threat?
00:47:55.310 --> 00:47:59.470
We need an alien invasion or uh that would probably help.
00:47:59.710 --> 00:48:02.670
It would probably help, but I'm not sure we need to get that.
00:48:02.670 --> 00:48:05.870
But we need to break down these boundaries that we've built up.
00:48:05.870 --> 00:48:10.830
And and then we were discussing here the boundary between humans and other species.
00:48:10.830 --> 00:48:16.190
That's another boundary that we have, which traditionally we have never worried about.
00:48:16.190 --> 00:48:21.310
It's only in the last 500 years or so that we even have cruelty laws and things like that.
00:48:21.310 --> 00:48:26.670
So we we've traditionally never worried about these things, but we're starting to worry about it.
00:48:26.670 --> 00:48:30.670
And I think that's a good, it's a I see that as a very positive development.
00:48:30.670 --> 00:48:34.270
But again, it's not we are not programmed to do that.
00:48:34.270 --> 00:48:38.510
We we are programmed to to look out for ourselves, not for somebody else.
00:48:38.510 --> 00:48:42.030
It's interesting that we have the capacity to expand our empathy.
00:48:42.030 --> 00:48:51.870
So our empathy is intended for the inner circle of family and friends, but we have the capacity to expand it.
00:48:51.870 --> 00:48:54.190
It's very interesting that we can do that.
00:48:54.190 --> 00:49:01.550
It it takes maybe some mental power that we need to add to it, but we have that capacity, which is really so.
00:49:01.550 --> 00:49:10.430
If you want to have my optimistic view, is that we work on that and and we are working on that at the moment, I think, and it will give a different morality than we used to have.
00:49:10.430 --> 00:49:10.830
Yeah.
00:49:10.990 --> 00:49:11.230
Yeah.
00:49:11.230 --> 00:49:11.710
Thank you.
00:49:11.710 --> 00:49:25.550
And it strikes me that as we look at most of the problems around the world, sometimes the technical solutions aren't that difficult in a sense, whether we're talking about climate change or animal farming or poverty reduction or human health.
00:49:25.550 --> 00:49:28.910
Quite often the technical solutions are reasonably within reach.
00:49:28.910 --> 00:49:34.190
The central challenge is actually one of human psychology and social norms and in-group-out-group tribalism.
00:49:34.190 --> 00:49:53.310
And it's a fascinating mix because in the on the one hand, we've been we have this evolutionary basis of an in-group-out group tribalism, but we also have the evolutionary basis that's given us that empathy and that potential for compassion and the cognitive ability to question and extend and improve and broaden our sphere of moral consideration.
00:49:53.630 --> 00:49:57.710
But you I think we should also put some uh pressure on the philosophers.
00:49:57.710 --> 00:50:06.830
The philosophers have given us for two million years a philosophy where humans are set apart from the rest of nature.
00:50:06.990 --> 00:50:07.390
Yeah.
00:50:07.630 --> 00:50:17.470
And there are exceptions to it, but most of them have emphasized how special humans are, how unique humans are, how we are actually not animals.
00:50:17.470 --> 00:50:25.310
Uh, and and if you look now at the pandemic that we have, the which is based on eating bats, people think.
00:50:25.310 --> 00:50:42.830
Uh we have noticed that this whole idea that we dominate nature, we can do whatever we want with nature because we are these superior beings, we don't need to care about nature, that has given us the climate change problem, has given us the pandemic, has given us all sorts of problems.
00:50:42.830 --> 00:50:46.510
And I think the philosophers need to change their tune.
00:50:46.510 --> 00:50:50.590
And the philosophers have always emphasized human uniqueness.
00:50:50.590 --> 00:50:55.870
And as a biologist, I can tell you humans are animals, absolutely.
00:50:55.870 --> 00:50:57.710
And our brain is not different.
00:50:57.710 --> 00:51:01.470
Our brain is bigger, but it's really not different from a monkey brain.
00:51:01.470 --> 00:51:05.870
And so the philosophers need to change the way they think about these things.
00:51:05.870 --> 00:51:09.310
And philosophy came out of theology, came out of religion.
00:51:09.310 --> 00:51:20.190
So there's this whole connection with Christianity and the problem of the soul and the mind-body dualism that they bought into.
00:51:20.190 --> 00:51:30.350
And I think since we're talking about human morality, and the philosophers always have been very prominent in the discussion of human morality, many of them need to start to change differently.
00:51:30.350 --> 00:51:33.310
And not all philosophers have been like that.
00:51:33.310 --> 00:51:48.990
So, for example, if you read David Hume, the Scottish philosopher, yeah, who was before Kant, before Kant got involved in morality, we had David Hume, who said that we have moral sentiments, who emphasized the emotions and the role of the emotions in morality.
00:51:48.990 --> 00:51:53.630
And so not all philosophers have been dualistic in the sense of between humans and animals.
00:51:54.110 --> 00:51:55.790
And can they suffer?
00:51:56.190 --> 00:51:56.590
Yeah.
00:51:56.590 --> 00:52:02.190
So not all of them have been like that, but many of them have emphasized the differences more than the similarities.
00:52:02.430 --> 00:52:02.990
Yeah, agree.
00:52:02.990 --> 00:52:03.550
Thank you.
00:52:03.550 --> 00:52:05.470
It's been an absolute inspiration to talk to you.
00:52:05.470 --> 00:52:13.150
You've helped, I think, so many people recognize the deep, ancient, even pre-human roots of our empathy and compassion.
00:52:13.150 --> 00:52:18.190
And you're also helping break down that human exceptionalism around the boundaries between the species as well.
00:52:18.190 --> 00:52:20.190
So it's been a real privilege to talk to you.
00:52:20.190 --> 00:52:25.870
And if you need any tips going vegan, then let me know and I can I'll get you one of these sweatshirts, one of these t-shirts.
00:52:25.870 --> 00:52:27.070
Okay, welcome.
00:52:27.070 --> 00:52:28.030
You're welcome.
00:52:28.030 --> 00:52:29.230
So thank you.
00:52:29.230 --> 00:52:32.190
Uh, what's the best way of people following you, finding more about your work?
00:52:32.190 --> 00:52:33.790
I'll include links in the show notes, of course.
00:52:34.030 --> 00:52:41.470
I think my last book, uh Mama's Last Hug, is maybe the best way to because I do discuss uh sentience there and issues like that.
00:52:41.470 --> 00:52:41.790
Yeah.
00:52:42.110 --> 00:52:42.670
Yeah, great.
00:52:42.670 --> 00:52:43.150
Excellent.
00:52:43.150 --> 00:52:47.390
I'll include the links to uh all of your other resources and your website as well.
00:52:47.390 --> 00:52:48.750
Thanks for listening.
00:52:48.750 --> 00:52:51.630
You're helping to normalize rational, compassionate thinking.
00:52:51.630 --> 00:52:54.910
Don't forget to subscribe, leave us some stars or a review.
00:52:54.910 --> 00:53:00.590
You can visit sentientism.info to find out more, and you'd be very welcome in any of our online community groups.
00:53:00.590 --> 00:53:01.950
The biggest is on Facebook.
00:53:01.950 --> 00:53:04.750
If you like what we're doing, why not tell your friends about us?
00:59:18.430 --> 00:59:19.950
Animal ethics.
00:59:19.950 --> 00:59:24.030
What was it that I said?
00:59:24.030 --> 00:59:34.190
Um sentientism, which brings together the virtues and values of humanism with those of the animal ethics movement.
00:59:34.190 --> 00:59:39.390
Which brings together the virtues and values of humanism with animal ethics.
00:59:39.390 --> 00:59:44.910
Which brings together the virtues and values of humanism with animal ethics.
00:59:44.910 --> 00:59:48.590
Okay, I think that's all I need.
00:59:48.590 --> 00:59:49.390
Thank you, Luca.