If you prefer audio, here are the links to the Sentientism podcast: 🍎apple.co/391khQO 👂pod.link/1540408008. Ratings, reviews & sharing with friends all appreciated. You're helping normalise "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings" sentientism.info. Everyone is welcome in our online communities - come join us: facebook.com/groups/sentientism.
Really love the comment about seeing the non-human life around one: birds, etc., and feeling that they make up a part of one's community. This is exactly how I feel with the groups of birds that enjoy the water / fountain I have on our little balcony for them. 😊❤
Thanks Louis - hope you enjoy - sorry (not really sorry) it's another episode with a Marxist!... but a fascinating conversation for you anyway hopefully :)
A podcast interview via the New Books Network - Animals series with Leigh Claire about her previous book "Wages Against Artwork..." podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/new-books-in-animal-studies/id1543537151?i=1000506855415
I agree with Leigh on the pet ownership issue (for the most part). I worry though that people might lose all empathy for animals if they don't have the "pet experience".
This is an interesting and probably valid concern, because we lose empathy for other humans as soon as we divide ourselves into other categories (nation, race, etc) and separate our experiences. A large part of why trans Atlantic slavery was destroyed is because the everyday Europeans (and not just those profiting) were gradually exposed to more and more of the suffering and were able to make an empathetic connection. I do admit, while I intellectually understand that pigs are no less sentient than dogs and deserve equal moral weight, I still initially feel more empathetic to dogs.
@@theockle Yeah. We are empathy-limited for sure. Maybe that's why protection under the law is the only way forward. That can be achieved by a few leaders rather than the masses. But at some point the masses need to buy in... I don't know, just speculating...
My owner is a sabotabby. Apart from that, I noticed your statement about the farmer who cruelly said, "What do I care if it dies? I'm raising them to kill them." At least there's honesty in this. I agree that it is a cruel attitude.Yet I find it somehow more forgivable than the attitude of farmers in this country, (New Zealand) who pretend to "care" so much about the welfare of their animals while subjecting them to all sorts of cruelty. They even fool themselves. The only thing most of them really care about is the money. If those animals did not bring in money, they'd kill them all on the spot. In fact they do kill them as soon as they reach the far-too-early age when their profitability reduces.
Have to add some comments as I listen. Am at 40:39 (I already ordered the book on Amazon!)... and sadly, there are humans that want animals to suffer: bulls in 'bullfights' are made to suffer on purpose; the dog meat trade in #China - the entire purpose of that culture is to make the dog suffer as much as possible prior to its death, they feel it makes them more manly or some such nonsense (to put it very mildly); there are those that want whales to suffer: Iceland, just look at the images of the bloodbath, as they kill entire familes with a rod through the head. There are strange religious sects in Africa where animals are nailed to pieces of wood and tortured. Again, in China, animals are skinned alive... There are 'festivals' where dogs are pulled in half (somewhere in S. America I believe). Cock fights... Hunters in America that run wolves over with snowmobiles, tape their mouths shut and make them suffer prior to killing them. Hunters that take packs of dogs in UK in order to tear foxes limb from limb. Hunters that take packs of dogs on hunts in US, in order to also tear bears and their cubs apart limb from limb. It is an endless list. These beings should not be forgotten.
Good examples. There are many more. Reminds me of a rule I find true: "If you think it's bad (and it is) - it's worse..." Does the corollary, "If you think it's good - it's better", hold? I don't think so. I hope I'm wrong, and that Jamie is right - that this sort of badness is rare. PS: Sentientism is pretty good - and it may be better than we think! 😁😇 PPS: I just figured it out. Bad stuff often, not always, tends to be hidden. Good stuff tends to be touted and monetized (bad stuff gets monetized too) so it's already "out there". So my rule holds. Is that somewhere in Marx too?, or is it just my little rule? 😁
@@Sentientism I don't see something as rare that is legal/tolerated, and even encouraged in some instances: in the US, the politicians in the central western states encourage cruelty toward wildlife, as it helps their bottom line: meat & dairy industry interests. And with 8 billion humans + on earth, even a small percentage of humans doing these things is enough. Even one human doing any of what I described above would be enough. If the leadership in these countries (given the examples I gave) do nothing, and the masses within these countries do nothing, but instead tolerate these *cultural* *traditions* (bull fighting, dog meat, etc.), I see all of these things as things that should be discussed at every opportunity, these are serious cases of monstrous cruelty; animal Ag is, all of it is, but to do something to purposely make a sentient being suffer, this is taking things to another level.
@@rwess I responded to Jamie's comment. I simply cannot leave this one alone I guess. Even a handful of humans doing any of what I described should be something to have all of humanity in a frenzy for it to stop, immediately. But the things I described are legal, and part and parcel of cultural traditions that are tolerated and even encouraged. I cannot understand why no one has studied these specific things, and written about them. There are some serious psychological issues within our species that need to be examined.
@@efortunywhitton I agree. We are seriously messed up, and it began quite some time ago, as Jim Mason points out. It is psychologically engrained. We are the great exploiters (commodifiers) and the great deniers. Almost everyone has seen a horrific image or video put out by PETA for example, yet we deny, deny, deny. A few do care and react; many care somewhat but deny their complicity; many more simply don't care. Mostly we are parasites who don't care. Can we change? Not enough and not fast enough, I think... PS: Singer examined it from a utilitarian perspective. He called our behavior "the tyranny of human over nonhuman animals".
yt suggest this video and I find the premisse interesting. I am currently struggling with this question: I am feeding a few stray cats in addition to my two own cats. first the stray cats was 1, then she got 3 young of which 2 have survived, and another 3 of which 2 are still around while the third has found new care takers. feeding one cat is no problem, feeding 8 cats is quite expensive. here is the question: is it acceptable to have the cats sterilized mainly for our convenience ? what would the cats choose ? less cats = more food security, but what is life if not to procreate ?
There's often no perfect answer in these situations and Sentientists are likely to answer differently. The cats' own interests are important of course - but so are those of their eventual offspring, the sanctuary cats not rescued because of more cats breeding - and the sentient beings exploited, harmed and killed to make their food (until more people catch on to Andrew Knights work re: vegan cat foods - see my earlier interview). Many people support spay and neuter campaigns, as an example, even though that does involve constraining cat interests in procreating.
Completely disagree (1:06:32) regarding not feeling a part of non-domesticated animal's world/not having a connection as a result of having domesticated animals. We are often hiking in the wilderness and camping; we've had encounters with black bears, wolves, grizzly bears, elk, deer, small rodents, raptors, passerine birds, fish, etc. & and each and every time the moment is simply magical, sublime, indescribable, tear-producing at times. It's a moment of absolute transendence. Whether in the wilderness, or encounters with wild animals within the urban world, each is extremely special, and even necessary to a happy existence; these connections are the same as those of needing green spaces for our psychological well-being, etc. We have two dogs, and the connection with them is pure love. Shouldn't we differentiate between wild and domesticated animals for a start? Is the plan to leave domesticated animals out in the world to fend for themselves? I can see the point in not having domesticated animals in some future, where humans stop 'producing' them, etc., but while they are here, they are our responsibility. And lastly, having a non-human connection with a non-human animal, and having these as a part of one's family, there is no harm in this. It's too much to dictate to people that in the big 'scheme'/plan, these will be done-away with, end of story. Surely, there can be some leeway in how we exist as a more compassionate species... and with humans + domesticated animals + wilderness. We after all, are domesticated.
And yet if social norms were very different - most could and would. My sense is that our current social norms brutally suppress a very widespread capacity for x-species empathy and compassion. Once those social norms switch things could really switch fast - given how much of our moral decision-making is driven by norm-compliance vs. actual ethics.
Yep - I like to think we're a slow burn channel for those who appreciate deeply thoughtful content rather than click-bait. But maybe I'm just compensating for my failure to build a bigger audience :)
If you prefer audio, here are the links to the Sentientism podcast: 🍎apple.co/391khQO 👂pod.link/1540408008. Ratings, reviews & sharing with friends all appreciated. You're helping normalise "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings" sentientism.info. Everyone is welcome in our online communities - come join us: facebook.com/groups/sentientism.
Really love the comment about seeing the non-human life around one: birds, etc., and feeling that they make up a part of one's community. This is exactly how I feel with the groups of birds that enjoy the water / fountain I have on our little balcony for them. 😊❤
So much to relate to in this conversation, thank you both!
Thank you Alan. I loved talking to Leigh Claire and "Marx for Cats" is a mindblowing read too. A fascinating lens.
Thanks for this content
Thanks for watching, Philip - hope you enjoy!
Good show!
Thanks Roy!
Looking forward to this discussion
Thanks Louis - hope you enjoy - sorry (not really sorry) it's another episode with a Marxist!... but a fascinating conversation for you anyway hopefully :)
@@Sentientism
🫂 😆
Gorgeous UA-cam video 📹
The world needs this!
Thank you Andrew! Glad you enjoyed.
A podcast interview via the New Books Network - Animals series with Leigh Claire about her previous book "Wages Against Artwork..." podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/new-books-in-animal-studies/id1543537151?i=1000506855415
I agree with Leigh on the pet ownership issue (for the most part). I worry though that people might lose all empathy for animals if they don't have the "pet experience".
This is an interesting and probably valid concern, because we lose empathy for other humans as soon as we divide ourselves into other categories (nation, race, etc) and separate our experiences.
A large part of why trans Atlantic slavery was destroyed is because the everyday Europeans (and not just those profiting) were gradually exposed to more and more of the suffering and were able to make an empathetic connection.
I do admit, while I intellectually understand that pigs are no less sentient than dogs and deserve equal moral weight, I still initially feel more empathetic to dogs.
@@theockle Yeah. We are empathy-limited for sure. Maybe that's why protection under the law is the only way forward. That can be achieved by a few leaders rather than the masses. But at some point the masses need to buy in... I don't know, just speculating...
My owner is a sabotabby.
Apart from that, I noticed your statement about the farmer who cruelly said, "What do I care if it dies? I'm raising them to kill them." At least there's honesty in this. I agree that it is a cruel attitude.Yet I find it somehow more forgivable than the attitude of farmers in this country, (New Zealand) who pretend to "care" so much about the welfare of their animals while subjecting them to all sorts of cruelty. They even fool themselves. The only thing most of them really care about is the money. If those animals did not bring in money, they'd kill them all on the spot. In fact they do kill them as soon as they reach the far-too-early age when their profitability reduces.
Have to add some comments as I listen. Am at 40:39 (I already ordered the book on Amazon!)... and sadly, there are humans that want animals to suffer: bulls in 'bullfights' are made to suffer on purpose; the dog meat trade in #China - the entire purpose of that culture is to make the dog suffer as much as possible prior to its death, they feel it makes them more manly or some such nonsense (to put it very mildly); there are those that want whales to suffer: Iceland, just look at the images of the bloodbath, as they kill entire familes with a rod through the head. There are strange religious sects in Africa where animals are nailed to pieces of wood and tortured. Again, in China, animals are skinned alive... There are 'festivals' where dogs are pulled in half (somewhere in S. America I believe). Cock fights... Hunters in America that run wolves over with snowmobiles, tape their mouths shut and make them suffer prior to killing them. Hunters that take packs of dogs in UK in order to tear foxes limb from limb. Hunters that take packs of dogs on hunts in US, in order to also tear bears and their cubs apart limb from limb. It is an endless list. These beings should not be forgotten.
True Erika - although this sort of psychopathy, against non-human and human animals alike, fortunately remains pretty rare (single digit %?)
Good examples. There are many more.
Reminds me of a rule I find true: "If you think it's bad (and it is) - it's worse..."
Does the corollary, "If you think it's good - it's better", hold? I don't think so.
I hope I'm wrong, and that Jamie is right - that this sort of badness is rare.
PS: Sentientism is pretty good - and it may be better than we think! 😁😇
PPS: I just figured it out. Bad stuff often, not always, tends to be hidden. Good stuff tends to be touted and monetized (bad stuff gets monetized too) so it's already "out there". So my rule holds. Is that somewhere in Marx too?, or is it just my little rule? 😁
@@Sentientism I don't see something as rare that is legal/tolerated, and even encouraged in some instances: in the US, the politicians in the central western states encourage cruelty toward wildlife, as it helps their bottom line: meat & dairy industry interests. And with 8 billion humans + on earth, even a small percentage of humans doing these things is enough. Even one human doing any of what I described above would be enough. If the leadership in these countries (given the examples I gave) do nothing, and the masses within these countries do nothing, but instead tolerate these *cultural* *traditions* (bull fighting, dog meat, etc.), I see all of these things as things that should be discussed at every opportunity, these are serious cases of monstrous cruelty; animal Ag is, all of it is, but to do something to purposely make a sentient being suffer, this is taking things to another level.
@@rwess I responded to Jamie's comment. I simply cannot leave this one alone I guess. Even a handful of humans doing any of what I described should be something to have all of humanity in a frenzy for it to stop, immediately. But the things I described are legal, and part and parcel of cultural traditions that are tolerated and even encouraged. I cannot understand why no one has studied these specific things, and written about them. There are some serious psychological issues within our species that need to be examined.
@@efortunywhitton I agree. We are seriously messed up, and it began quite some time ago, as Jim Mason points out. It is psychologically engrained. We are the great exploiters (commodifiers) and the great deniers. Almost everyone has seen a horrific image or video put out by PETA for example, yet we deny, deny, deny. A few do care and react; many care somewhat but deny their complicity; many more simply don't care. Mostly we are parasites who don't care. Can we change? Not enough and not fast enough, I think...
PS: Singer examined it from a utilitarian perspective. He called our behavior "the tyranny of human over nonhuman animals".
yt suggest this video and I find the premisse interesting. I am currently struggling with this question: I am feeding a few stray cats in addition to my two own cats. first the stray cats was 1, then she got 3 young of which 2 have survived, and another 3 of which 2 are still around while the third has found new care takers. feeding one cat is no problem, feeding 8 cats is quite expensive. here is the question: is it acceptable to have the cats sterilized mainly for our convenience ? what would the cats choose ? less cats = more food security, but what is life if not to procreate ?
There's often no perfect answer in these situations and Sentientists are likely to answer differently. The cats' own interests are important of course - but so are those of their eventual offspring, the sanctuary cats not rescued because of more cats breeding - and the sentient beings exploited, harmed and killed to make their food (until more people catch on to Andrew Knights work re: vegan cat foods - see my earlier interview). Many people support spay and neuter campaigns, as an example, even though that does involve constraining cat interests in procreating.
Completely disagree (1:06:32) regarding not feeling a part of non-domesticated animal's world/not having a connection as a result of having domesticated animals. We are often hiking in the wilderness and camping; we've had encounters with black bears, wolves, grizzly bears, elk, deer, small rodents, raptors, passerine birds, fish, etc. & and each and every time the moment is simply magical, sublime, indescribable, tear-producing at times. It's a moment of absolute transendence. Whether in the wilderness, or encounters with wild animals within the urban world, each is extremely special, and even necessary to a happy existence; these connections are the same as those of needing green spaces for our psychological well-being, etc. We have two dogs, and the connection with them is pure love. Shouldn't we differentiate between wild and domesticated animals for a start? Is the plan to leave domesticated animals out in the world to fend for themselves? I can see the point in not having domesticated animals in some future, where humans stop 'producing' them, etc., but while they are here, they are our responsibility. And lastly, having a non-human connection with a non-human animal, and having these as a part of one's family, there is no harm in this. It's too much to dictate to people that in the big 'scheme'/plan, these will be done-away with, end of story. Surely, there can be some leeway in how we exist as a more compassionate species... and with humans + domesticated animals + wilderness. We after all, are domesticated.
"Cats have been understood to be anti-authority for at least 1200 year"
And they've made massive progress in that time! 😅
Being anti-authoritarian is one thing. Having the power to resist it is quite another :)
38:47 - Good point, exactly... How to obtain the perspective shift? I don't know. I think most can't.
And yet if social norms were very different - most could and would. My sense is that our current social norms brutally suppress a very widespread capacity for x-species empathy and compassion. Once those social norms switch things could really switch fast - given how much of our moral decision-making is driven by norm-compliance vs. actual ethics.
@@Sentientism That's why I keep tuning in. The possibility exists (however small) - and if the switch happens, it would be astounding !!!
9 views in 1 hour you fell off
Yep - I like to think we're a slow burn channel for those who appreciate deeply thoughtful content rather than click-bait. But maybe I'm just compensating for my failure to build a bigger audience :)