I became vegan due to Peter Singer's teachings and philosophies. Upon reading Animal Liberation back in the 80s, educating myself on the practices of modern day factories farms, I could no longer support an industry inflicting abject pain upon billions of animals. Thank you Peter Singer for your life long teachings of making this world a kinder place.
I had heard of Peter Singer but didn’t know much about him, his beliefs and activism. I went vegan last July for economic reasons, weight, health and the environment. But under all of that has to bean an awareness of the way animals are used and abused. I was informed about slaughter houses and watched several documentaries. I finally stopped being wishy-washy!!
You don't need to be a vegan to consume ethically though yes even in the city and bragging about it kinda shows you're doing it for selfish reasons more than anything but im no vegan so what do I know
I remember sitting on the floor of my apartment after graduating college in 1988, reading Animal Liberation, the tears flowing, the realization dawning. Followed up with The Case for Animal Right by Tom Regan. These books and men changed the course of my life. Thank you Peter.
Good on you Lori - Peter influenced me towards consuming animal products less. Vegetarian for 15 years (I’m 27 now!) and in future, I’d like to revisit veganism for proper ethical consistency. All the best to you!
Same here. Peter Singer and Tom Regan are giants, but so are the many leaders of organizations and individuals grinding to push that peanut Henry Spira did. Rich Roll is one of them. Thank you for this podcast. Would love to see more interviews with on the ground advocates, activists, entrepreneurs, and organizational founders and leaders of animal organizations. Great conversation.
If you wanna be successful, you must take responsibility for your emotions, not place the blame on others. In addition to making you feel more guilty about your faults, pointing the finger at others will only serve to increase your sense of personal accountability. There's always a risk in every investment, yet people still invest and succeed. You must look outward if you wanna be successful in life...
I trade as a side hustle while keeping my job. I'm tired of trading in losses myself. I've blown my account twice and it's frustrating. I see people making a living out of trading and I want to do the same. Please I need help can someone teach me how to trade?
yeah, she does, and in my opinion, it's a huge one and a chance for you to change your life with trading. I just bought my dream Mercedes from last week's profit. Thanks to her expertise.
I am drinking my morning coffee and this popped up on the recommendations list. A few years ago I wrote my bachelor's thesis based on his works and theory (comparing them to Robert Nozicks), and here I am again concluding that Peter is just a great person. No more words are needed.
Really? Like what SBF did? I prefer actual altruism, which doesn't require participating in an exploitative system in the first place. Most people practicing "effective" altruism are actually just trying to get rich and have moral justification for it
What a wonderful human being!!! No words can describe his generosity and his care for our fellow humans. May Peter Singer live a very long and healthy life. ...and thank youuuuuuuu!!!!!!!! :)
41:35 There was a crucial factor left out of the conversation: Grass fed does not mean that the bovine is eating straight from the ground. The hay and sylage used to feed this animals are harvested using the same machinery that is used in soy and corn harveting and feeding a bovine this hay and sylage is classfied as grass fed. Earthling Ed went deep into this topic showing all the studies about it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0QTNgKpV_K4.html
I read the comments and I think it happened to all of us, but because of Peter I learned about veganism, I read and heard everything about it. Thanks Rich, today I heard things that he had never heard from him. I love you Mr Singer
Peter Singer made me vegan. I read practical ethics because some other controversy made me curious. I of course didn't want to become vegan, so to find some justification I bought "The vegetarian myth" by Lierre Keith. It was such a steaming pile of unresearched, badly written, badly arguing horse dung that I went vegan the very same week. My only regret was not reading Practical Ethics earlier.
I agree that Kieth was terribly mistaken, but she was never even vegan. Her argument never made sense to anyone who was. Also, I think you need to look at the critiques of Singer.... He's not vegan and neither is his philosophy! Check out the channel á-bas-le-ciel and his Playlist of Singer critiques... It's a much more ethical way of approaching what we do to animals. It MATTERS how we approach this!
@Paulo JRM Santos just look back at many of the statements he's made in the past. His philosophy of utilitarianism sounds good on the surface, ie maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain, but this leads to some weird conundrums. For example, people could happily gang-rape a woman if she was drugged and didn't feel pain, because the pleasure felt by the assailants would be a net good. Similarly, animals that live a good happy life can be murdered if they are killed "humanely" and don't suffer. Does that sound like a vegan philosophy?
@@MattAngionomaximizing the pleasure of the many uis not preference utilitarianism, and in any case that is a naive take on utilitarianism (and the suffering of rape victims). A society where drugging and raping is commonplace, there would be widespread fear. The infringement of preference of something killed for its flesh is total, whereas the satisfaction of the consumer is transitory. I don't think I have ever seen a good argument against preference utilitarian veganism, even though I nowadays mostly use rights based approach in discussions (say, like Tom Regan).
I turned vegan from vegetarian in October, 2021 thanks to a lecture of Doctor John McDougall. I am a runner and tennis coach and I feel so light when I run. Vegan is the way to go!
Thank you, @RichRoll, for this illuminating conversation. Peter has had a significant influence on my new book that I am currently writing, and I was very pleased to see him as a guest on your show. Thank you, also, for having me as a guest in 2021. I appreciate you.
Peter Singer is wonderful. A thousand years ago in college Ethics class I read his book and looking back I am so glad that that book was required reading way back then. Might I suggest for a future show some of all of the following people on the topic of environmental justice: Corbin Addison (author of Wastelands, new book on the legal battle between people living near cafos and big pork), Shaun Bannon (filmmaker of The Smell of Money), Rick Dove (Waterkeeper Alliance), Larry Baldwin (Waterkeeper Alliance’s North Carolina Pure Farms), to discuss factory farming and how it affects communities. Thanks, Rich!
👏🏼👏🏼 Rich! You got to sit with Peter Singer! What a fruitful conversation. What seems to me is that we conflate a lot of these quandries with intellectualism when we are, in fact, emotional beings, which, perhaps, is why people care more about the ethics of AI sentience than animal sentience. Socially, we applaud intellect and seem to, up until recently, shun emotionality. AI is inherently intelligent and is more a favorable reflection of us than another animals. The cognitive dissonance isn't as strong regarding AI and the worth seems to be placed on intelligence because, as I said, we're not being very heart-forward about this. Your interviews just get better and better, Rich. I hope you , your team and fam, and Mr. Peter Singer, who's book I have thoroughly annotated to death, stay well and curious. Thanks for the sparks.
I've learned a lot from this guy. For consistency though, I miss a honest discussion of the Gulag, which was also meant to get to a more happy, fair, humane society.
Wonderful episode, though I find the reasoning for an ethical life insufficient. We have to realize rhat we do not live in a bubble, we are aware if the others' suffering, and we are touched by the all the negative news, they are part of our experience. We can feel distressed just by the knowing, by the uncertainty abiut the future. And as long as this persists, our experience is tainted. And this is why. It's about ourselves. Our experience.
I agree with many values and ethical/moral standards you discuss..Many are better than what we have now but they don't go far enough to me. I firmly disagree - to strive for these changes from 18:10 you list - that is so low order (I mean in low level abstraction) actions to strive for change politically. It seems to me that a more appropriate goal would be to strive for a holistic change of the socio-economic system where you can include right away (design in) the moral aspects that were discussed, for example. Would you have any viable argument against?
This man is brilliant, and he does amazing things. When he couldn’t explain why children and animals not suffering was preferable, but couldn’t explain how it would help the planet, The conversation felt a bit sterile to me. The less suffering the more compassion, The more compassion the higher vibration we get to live in❤️
I love Peter Singer. Been a fan of his since the late 90s. He is the first person that ever got me to even think about ethics or the fact that I should be investigating where my own ethics are and how to engage that search. No negative comments really but I do think your understanding of consciousness is a bit Eurocentric. Mimicking human behavior, and self learning is not consciousness. That’s not really how consciousness works. Hell, even neuroscientists can’t tell you where consciousness is, how it comes about, how we are able to experience it, etc…. But you know who can? Meditators. People who have spent most of their lives, studying the mind through introspection and direct knowing. And I will tell you of the discoveries they have come to quite clearly pointed towards machines, not ever having the consciousness that sentient beings do. Mimicking sentience is not sentience.
Jesus ( or so the story goes) traveled amongst people and got the most bang for His efforts. The movement is so urgent today and every town, city, school district, coach, school nurse, special education department, needs this information so what will optimize manistream getting it since we know media protects industry and status quo!?
If you are referring to the philosophy of veganism or the message of Jesus (as in compassion) then I agree.. I don't think we need religion itself pushed on anyone, let alone children. Anyone can, however, learn about ethics or how to care for others, and this SHOULD be taught to young people
1:30:00 Sir, but it ís selfindulgent to put billions of dollars - wasting colossal amounts of energy and resources in the process - toward developing a human colony on Mars just in case of nuclear armageddon, instead of putting these monetary and material resources toward anti nuclear proliferation, transforming the military industrial complex into life sustaining industries, preserving biodiversity and the rainforests, contributing to energy transition, fighting poverty, developing alternative economies, etc. Moreover, humans are constitutionally and biologically incapable to live (sanely) anywhere else but on earth. The hubris of this preposterous project would be laughable if it weren't so immoral.
Thanks to Peter for correcting the interviewer's silly comment about GenX being cynical, in the most elegant way possible. He basically said "I agree with you, kinda."
I’m going to be honest - massive respect to Peter singer he’s a legend and his founding of the effective altruism movement is grand - but all of this is still steeped in dogmatism. Agony is bad is not a rule because “obviously”. there’s tons of situations where agony and suffering are a part of learning that’s why those emotions exist. On the point of effective change this video could have been a great way to pull in people with different moral matrices but by starting with the assumption that reducing suffering is life goal #1 you’ve immediately alienated a huge part of the population that believe they have much more important problems to worry about than the emotional well being of chickens (I’m not saying they are right or wrong but the fact stands). For example if you’re growing up in poverty and don’t have access to clean water, changing your diet against the grain might not feel like the most effective way to spend your time and energy at all. Tons of these movements are massively privileged and so caught up in projecting moral assumptions on every other person on the planet that they won’t be successful
This man is NOT VEGAN! His philosophy is NOT VEGAN! There have been many critiques of Singer by actual vegans explaining how in his own words he justifies killing of animals... Utilitarianism doesn't have any basis in reality, because ethics are not objective. There is no way to measure the pleasure or suffering that animals experience. We can have empathy and try to understand to some extent, but this is always limited. The question is a subjective one. How do YOU want to live and what ethical choices do YOU make based on your knowledge of the world. Ethical vegans choose to do so because we care about what kind of people we are individually. We care about what happens to animals beyond some utilitarian argument about how much they suffer. If you care about veganism, you should NOT be supporting this man or his philosophy. While he did do a lot to promote vegetarian beliefs in the beginning, it's far from sufficient for people who really want to see a vegan world and better lives for animals. He has even stated he believes it's okay to kill human beings that aren't of a certain intelligence.... Is this the kind of ethical leader we want? You can look at the writings of Gray Francione outlining these arguments, or check out á-bas-le-ciel on RU-vid and look up his Playlist on singer critiques.... It's just sad that so many of us are celebrating him without knowing how flawed these arguments are. We can do BETTER!
When you talk about eating an animal nose to tail, remember, most people who eat meat are still eating grains and beans that kill mice and rodents. I don't think that idea stands up. I would also point to pesticide use in crops and managing rodents in housing situations. Using bait boxes to attract mice and rats to the box to eat poison feed and then that rodent goes into the wild to die but before it does is eaten by a dog, cat, fox or bird of prey and then that animal is poisoned. I find being vegan to be the small way I can help stop some suffering in the world.
SBF stole money…but due to the fact he gave it away it is ok? This guy is something else….Are you listening to this guy? How is this guy an expert? Be careful….
This guy is a pied piper for those that run this world, so many comments saying they listened to him and turned vegan. Globalist agenda - buy up farmland, mono crop (soy/pea/corn), use big agro chemicals to grow massive amounts of this stuff and market profitable processed vegan food to the impressionable masses. This is NOT the way to a healthy happy sustainable thriving planet and humanity. It boils my piss that he is using our inherent love and compassion for animals to further the agenda of billionaire corporate globalists who don’t give a fuck about us let alone animals.
Peter and Rich -- AI is upon us NOW. They have given Sophia citizenship in Saudi Arabia and she is AI without a heart or brain. In fact, she was demanding a warehouse where she could make "others like her" without in the human input. Oh we are there and I think this dilmena is more important that "farmed animals and the ethics around that". Just my humble opinion for you both to be more in the reality of what IS going on right NOW.
So Peter is for more in your face protests and wants to “study it”? How you do you tend to change your mind about a subject. When someone shoves it in your face or with education, compassion, patience, grace, and peace?
@@AllThingsAnimals-ZA Please forgive me. I doubt you changed something for the good as it was shoved in your face. Peter’s tactic is to pressure and shove. It is a tactic for sure but not one that goes with peace. For example. What if religion was shoved in your face. Would that work for you?
@@RRags If a good point was made while it was being shoved in my face then yea. Problem with religion is there so far hasn't been a good point. I look at arguments based on the logical strength of the argument. Not the tone it is presented in. So when I became vegan it was because someone drew an analogy between my behavior/ ideology at the time and the behavior/ ideology of racists and sexists. Was very aggressive. But it worked in this case.
@@AllThingsAnimals-ZA Weedy! How are you today. Ok, lets continue. You mention religion and making a good point or logical strength of the agreement. Agreed, but that is not force. No one can force you to believe a certain way (religion included) if they “force” it on you. You will reject it outright. That is my point. You are ok with force around the “vegan” movement because you already believe it and appear to look down on people who don’t get it. Even Jesus didn’t force anyone and He died on the Cross for your sins and mine. Jesus suffered and died a horrible death so that we could live. He sacrificed himself for you! Now that is powerful, persuasive and extremely humbling. God loves you so much that He sacrificed His one and only Son?! Wow!
One can agree with almost every cause that Peter Singer champions. If only he did not link all this with philosophy. His philosophical arguments in support of his various highly valuable endeavours are deeply flawed. A long essay, or even a whole book is needed to tackle all the flaws in Singer's philosophical arguments, especially in relation to animal rights and altruism. A poor philosopher then, but a great champion of worthy causes.
Rich. You suffered a lot and look at where that sufferings got you today. Eliminate suffering? Would you do your life all over again if you could have less or no suffering in it? Hasn’t that suffering helped you become the person you are today? No one likes suffering from useless negative reasons, but what about suffering to get ahead? Your athletic achievements came with a lot of suffering! I assume that is ok? What the hell is effective altruism anyway. Some fancy term to be nice to your fellow man, be charitable…
I'm really sorry, but this felt like a lot of fluff. It could just be me, but this interview felt very disjointed and...heartless...even though the discussions are important.
I’m not going to watch this, as I’m already familiar with Singer and will happily never look at his face again. All of the gushing here is concerning, but not surprising given the state of idiocy and evil in the world. This is a direct quote: "Killing them [infants], therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities existing over time," he states in Practical Ethics. At one stage, the ever-practical Singer proposed a post-natal 28-day qualification period during which infants - non-persons at that stage - could be killed.
Peter. I will pray for you. Your are not a saint, that is for sure….Rich, I respect you immensely, but having this guy did not advance anything, not love, not peace, not encouraging….It is unfortunate.
Peter Singer: "Killing them [infants], therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities existing over time," he states in Practical Ethics. At one stage, the ever-practical Singer proposed a post-natal 28-day qualification period during which infants - non-persons at that stage - could be killed.
@@lc5453You should check out Singer's more recent work. His shift from preference utilitarianism to hedonistic utilitarianism resulted in him softening some of his earlier claims that depended on a greater emphasis on personhood. Singer is now focused more explicitly on reducing suffering, which includes the suffering of severely disabled infants and terminally ill adults. Reducing suffering is a good thing and Singer is a better man than most of us. He is not just more clear-headed, he also puts his money where his mouth is.
First and foremost the population has to come down to one-fourth of what we have now, all nations should advocate and take serious action as a first step. There by degradation can come down at all levels and easier to address to small population to walk on the path of compassion with all being educated. Idealistic but no other way, otherwise we can have only a violent world on the path of destruction. Think
