Ética na alimentação | Peter Singer

vos a rotten so keep our disease she Roma a chicken ala meta so Keith Alves okay Espinosa dispossess sona's prattle era su super mercado's especially fond o nosso Planeta so flavor nose Eury Perez Oh philosopher Peter since ur nose lever money flexor sobre as pratik a co-producer dos alimentos yo como no Sousa be totally mentalis influency or maybe ng y no sub n star no mundo on residual meant a billion pesos importante pensado's homos the producers elementos so let me begin with this question of the impact that what we eat has on non-human animals obviously

this has been an interest of mine for quite a long time now it's more than 40 years since I started thinking about the ethics of how we ought to treat animals and there's been a lot of discussion about that but I convinced that the the basic ideas that I put forward right and in fact have been more widely accepted over that 40-year period than they were when I started thinking about this issue the essential idea is that we are not justified in failing to consider the interests of a being simply because that being is not

human that is simply because that being is not a member of our species if a being is conscious if it has interests in how well its life goes that is if the beings life can go well or badly from the perspective of that being then that being or account and those interests oughta count so for example if the being is in pain or the being suffers we ought to think of that as a bad thing just as we would think that the pain and suffering of human beings is normally a bad thing we do wrong

if we say well because it's because it's not a human being it's pain or suffering doesn't matter or if we say that it's pain and suffering matters less than a similar amount of suffering experienced by a human being unfortunately the the normal attitude that most people still have to animals does not give this equal weight to the interest of the animals it gives either no weight or much less weight to the interests of the animals and I think that this is wrong I think I use the term speciesism to refer to this attitude of prejudice

against beings on the grounds that they're not members of our species and as you can guess that term speciesism is intended to suggest parallels with phenomenon that we're more familiar with like racism and sexism so we're familiar with the ideas that some white people in particular have had that perhaps not only white people that only members of their race really can't really important and we're entitled to use members of other races in ways that suit us but are clearly harmful to them the most glaring case obviously would be enslaving them and men have often had

somewhat similar views about women that their interest don't count as much as those of men do now we generally agree that that's wrong when it comes to racism and sexism now but we have not really grappled with the idea that there's a similar kind of wrong not exactly the same of course but a similar kind of wrong if we say that well our species is what's really important it's the only thing that really matters and if you outside that species then ethically it's not really a problem what we do to you you don't really can't

ethically I think that that as I say is wrong and not defensible not justifiable and I think it's clearly important to see that the non-human animals that we eat are conscious beings sentient beings who can feel things because because basically the animals that we eat or whose products we use vertebrates so they're either there are the birds or mammals or fish and their nervous systems are very similar to ours they show pain behavior in ways that we do we have an evolutionary connection with them and I think it's really implore to suggest that they're not

capable of suffering if you were going to ask me about insects or something that would be a different question much more difficult to establish so that insects feel pain but you know with the exception maybe of honey from bees generally when we don't eat a lot of insects I guess in some cultures more insects are consumed but I'm you know let's say though I'm focusing largely on the vertebrate animals that we do eat so I think they do feel pain and unfortunately in producing them for food or in capturing them for food we don't really

give much if any attention to their suffering or their well-being now I said much if any because it's true that most societies have some laws requiring more humane slaughter than used to happen in the past so animals will go through modern slaughterhouses and they will be generally stunned in some way before they're actually killed and that's more humane certainly and that's that's a good thing but firstly this doesn't happen for all the animals we eat most notably it doesn't happen for fish because there really is no general practice of humane killing of fish they usually

just hold up out of the water and allowed to slowly suffocate which must be a painful death but when it comes to the land animals that we're in in farms the problem is not so much the moment of slaughter itself which is a brief period in their lives but the lives as a whole which lasts of course a much longer time and over the last 50 or so years we have developed new methods of industrial farming which do enable us to produce products like chicken in particular to be the greatest example but also Pig products

by pork and ham and bacon as well as eggs and to some extent even dairy products enables us to produce them more cheaply and on a large scale but at the cost of depriving them of any kind of natural life so that whereas previously the chickens would be kept in a small flock in a farm yard and they would have room to move around and they would search for insects or grains in a modern chicken factory they will be inside a huge shed with maybe 20,000 other chickens all crowded in there if you walk into

the shed and look at it at first glance it seems like it's just got a thick white carpet on it and that's just the white feathered chickens covering the entire floor there's no individual veterinary attention at all if they for example collapse if their legs collapse under them which does happen because they're bred to grow so fast that they're immature or leg bones don't keep them up they will just they're without access to food or water until they die of thirst or starvation and eventually somebody may walk through the shed and pick up the corpses

but there it just would not pay to give them any kind of veterinary attention they're just not worth that much and they're under stress their entire lives in such crowded environments which they have never evolved to cope with similarly the hens that lay our eggs are kept in small wire cages again very crowded they can't even stretch their wings in those cages the cages are too small to allow them to stretch their wings pigs are also often reared indoors particularly the breeding sows the mothers of the pigs sold for their meat very closely confined sometimes

so that they can't even turn around and just kept on bare concrete because that's the easiest and cheapest thing to keep clean and to provide them with something like straw would just add extra expense and from the producers point of view there's no point in doing that so these huge systems pay no attention to the interests of the animals they're only geared to profit and any suffering will only be taken into account if it in some way reduces profit which unfortunately you have to go a long way and cause very extreme distress very often before

you do reduce profit so I think this is an entirely unethical system it's a system which is geared to treating sentient animals as if they were just things as if we were just producing some pieces of plastic in a factory or something of that sort I don't think it can be defended not all animals are produced in such bad conditions cattle typically I do have more room to move around and you could perhaps say that's more defensible no there's just huge numbers of animals that are being produced in this way the according to the United

Nations Food and Agriculture Organization the number of land animals produced for food now is 64 or billion each year so we're talking about say seven times the the world's pop in eight or nine times the world's population in animals being reared and killed for food and that doesn't include fish which would add many more animals to the number killed although fish at least if they're wild caught fish we haven't interfered with our lives we've only killed them in painful ways but I think that's also not acceptable and more fish are being found and that farming

is also quite intensive so the overall picture will be that food is an ethical issue because we have choices as to what we're going to eat and the choices that we make have consequences for all of these things that I've mentioned and therefore it is an important ethical issue to choose in a way that will lead to the best consequences overall for the issues that I'm talking about they usually need a civil is as Omaha so entry or minimize no cd OG for mig Alitalia okey NJ Sara consider a do an emoji Casa de que

hacen para los alimentos tono Summa producing large e Scala industrial Lozada Co momento de populace Omaha a few necesario 10 vo Montera produce sons alimentos my Segundo Peterson jure a Formica movie so si de acero grungy des equilibrium being tau sir Jasper goon to--'cause area Harrison intra carne give us a call me yaki samito global Pasadena idea kill Jose Calvo vena cavae lugar de comercio un cadeau ho Donna says sent a Cinco kilometres yep aquaria Amanda's receipt pies Casa Doris Day messenger gasses defeat estufa para Peter Cesar say no a possible haver Tara's forces da

sistema capital insta G produce Angela Mentos a models Edina Sosa Beto's Alimentarius a fundamental AC to pooja Tajikistan osakans the way in which we obtain food is a very significant contributor to climate change the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization a few years ago put out a report that was called livestock's long shadow and that report concluded that the greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production are greater than the greenhouse gas emissions from the entire transport sector from all of the cars we drive all of the trucks on the roads all of the trains all of

the ships and all of the aeroplanes all of that is less than the greenhouse gases we produce through raising animals for food in fact raising animals for food comes in second in terms of greenhouse gas production with energy production being the only thing that's ahead of it and since here in Brazil you produce a lot of your energy through hydroelectricity generation which does not produce greenhouse gases but you are a very big producer of livestock and in particular of beef this makes the role of livestock production in specifically in Brazil even more significant than it

is for the world as a whole so it's certainly something that needs to be considered what can be done about this well I said earlier that cattle typically are not as intensively reared as chickens and pigs and so one might think that they're therefore more ethically defensible in terms of the interests of the animals not causing them suffering but unfortunately from the greenhouse gas point of view cattle are significantly worse than pigs and chickens and pigs and chickens are actually worse generally than producing grains or vegetables so why a cattle worse there are a number

of reasons for this the most obvious one is that their digestive system produces methane methane is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas much more powerful than carbon dioxide so even though the quantities produced are not so large it has a very significant effect on changing the climate so to produce one kilo of beef you use produce about as much greenhouse gases as if you drove a car something like 65 kilometers normal cars and if you compare that with the amount that you produce when you grow grains or potatoes it's it's very small it might be a

kilo of potatoes might be equivalent to driving a car just a handful of kilometers just maybe 2 or 3 or 4 kilometers so there's a very big discrepancy here and there doesn't seem to be really a way of changing this some scientists have worked with tries ways of trying to reduce the the cows methane emissions but nothing really has succeeded at this stage and it's it that's not the only factor to think about either another important factor is that we feed these animals large amounts of grains and soybeans and therefore they use the food value

that we feed them not just to convert it like on a one-for-one basis into something we can eat but they use it in order to get energy to keep themselves warm to move around to develop bones which we don't eat or other parts of their bodies that we don't so we're actually wasting quite a bit of the food value of the grains and soybeans that we've produced and that also involves energy that involves fossil fuel fuel producing these crops fossil fuel for making fertilizers fossil fuels for the various farm operations sowing harvesting and so on

so if we want to be efficient we would eat these grains and soybeans ourselves and get the maximum amount of food value from them if instead we feed them to animals then we've got to grow a lot more and we've got to use a lot more fossil fuel in the process of doing so so that's why I think we can't really justify beef reduction when we think of this from a climate change point of view and why this is a an ethical issue in terms of the impact that we're having on our planet we are

already in danger of getting beyond the limit that was agreed to by all of the nations of the world at the initial Earth Summit which of course was held in 1992 here in Brazil in Rio de Janeiro where all of those nations including the United States and China and India and Brazil to naturally agreed that they would try to prevent what they called dangerous anthropogenic climate change so dangerous changes to the climate caused by human activity I economy to do is for you my confidential the slogan is assuage does not so easily this so bloom

even bhu des involve immense sustantivo who say to hellige for me to know why apke give you new mazda6 chef is start i economy today steve tampa visibility idea designed by carry on singing she is Rene's borgin Africa do su papel Adagio nice days in judo badoosy say gmos no brasil are you my swings objetivo do encounter fever if Acacio via verses in here are some unscrupulous interior 'yes you claim the place is a still fate para q spicy Tony do fat substantive 'yes but we haven't really stopped producing greenhouse gases and we are now

rapidly reaching the point where this is becoming dangerous where it's changing the climate already but causing with a very high degree of certainty much bigger changes that will occur over the next century so that although the planet has already warmed a little bit it is inevitably going to warm quite a lot more because the greenhouse gases are already up there in the atmosphere and we have no way of taking them out of the atmosphere really that is going to be feasible on on a big enough scale for what we've done so this will mean things

not only warming of some parts of the world but it will mean things like a change in rainfall patterns and not in very predictable ways it will mean things like a rise in sea levels and if you think about the consequences of this I think they're going to be pretty bad for everyone because obviously people have settled and grown food in places where the rainfall is favorable and they farm rich fertile Delta regions that are quite close to sea level but it's going to be worst for the world's poorest people they are the ones who

are least going to be able to defend themselves against this because it's in the poorer nations that the majority of people armors small farmers who rely on what they grow in order to feed themselves and their families and mostly they rely on rainfall to grow those crops so if the rainfall patterns change if for example the Asian monsoon weakens and produces less rain over India and Bangladesh and other parts of Asia there will be hundreds of millions of small farmers who will not be able to grow their food and similar things might happen in in

parts of Africa and then you can add to that the people tens of millions of people as I saying that low-lying Delta regions of the Bangladesh say or the Mekong or the Nile whose land will become inundated by rising sea levels so it's likely that we will have hundreds of millions of climate refugees over the next century and where are they going to go at the moment nations of the world are not very open and accepting refugees we already have a refugee problem so the problem is only going to get worse that's why this is

such an urgent issue and that's why if we can make choices in what we eat that will reduce the prospects of this disaster happening we should make those choices it's not necessarily enough obviously we have to try to cut back greenhouse gas emissions from all kinds of sources but I think we should be doing everything we can and changing our diet is one of the important things that we can do to reduce greenhouse gases obviously you know with the with the greenhouse gas issue particularly a reduction in meat is going to help even if you

don't eliminate it the problem really is the the number of cattle that we have on the planet and if we were to cut that in half well that would make a big improvement just as if we were to cut the amount of coal or oil that we burn in half those would also make big improvements so we don't have to think of it as a kind of all-or-nothing thing that everybody in the world has to become vegan or else we haven't achieved anything on the contrary if we reduce that we will have achieved things both

for the climate and for reducing animal suffering so you know even if you just went one day a week without meat you would be doing something significant would be worth doing and we may go in this direction but I think in the long run actually at least in a fluent societies we probably will find more alternatives and more replacements maybe it'll be the in-vitro meat that I mentioned earlier maybe it'll be something else and so we could you know we could replace that just as maybe a couple of hundred years ago if somebody had said

there's a lot of cruelty to horses when they have to pull wagons but it's utopian to imagine that people are gonna stop using horses to pull wagons well technology more or less solve that problem we don't have such cruelty to horses now although obviously we have other problems with the internal combustion engine see rocky producer moscow MOFA zemo's virginal Argos Scala significa my your Assessors Alamitos equally dodgy maybe the Agua to me the past what's the thing Suzuki Lucy 10-4 Mizuki accession okay so comida Hajus comida give you so much as you don't care so

commuters into care Syed the plaque okay but one of the things that I've said is that eating some kinds of animal products in particular is going to accelerate global poverty by making it more difficult for small farmers to produce food so that's a clear connection with global poverty another thing that I've already mentioned is that we are feeding a large amount of our grains and soybeans to animals and that this is not an efficient way of feeding ourselves and you know this is this is what is happening to the crops you grow here in Brazil

Brazil of course is a huge producer and a huge exporter of soybeans but the majority of these soybeans are not directly eaten by humans they're fed to animals and the animals then internat eaten by humans and if they're said to be capital for instance we get back only about ten percent of the food value of the soybeans or grain if they're fed to chickens we do a bit better we get back maybe a third of the food value but there is no animal that we eat that we feed grain to that gives us back even

half of the food value of what we're feeding so the significance of this for global poverty is that we could produce a lot more food or we would have a lot more food available if we did not feed this to animals and therefore we would contribute to a lowering of world food prices and in recent years they've been fluctuations in world food prices but they have over by and large risen and the the World Bank estimates that more people have been made hungry because of the rise in food prices because they can no longer afford

the food that they when they don't produce it themselves so we ought therefore to be thinking about using the food we produce more efficiently enabling more of it to flow to the world markets not having the affluent people of the world absorbing so much of it indirectly by eating the animal products which it goes into but rather making it easier for people without very much money and who do not produce their own food to absorb to buy that food on the world market so that would be an important contribution again to reducing global poverty reducing

hunger and malnutrition that also leads to one more specific thing about the ethics of food that I want to mention we do buy some food from developing countries from pork on trees but very often they are forced to accept very low prices for what they sell because they're in a weak bargaining position against larger corporations or buyers in their area there is one way in which we can avoid that and that is by looking for fair trade labeled products so what is a worldwide movement to establish fair trade standards which essentially means that the producers

can earn enough to have a living income that is an income on which they can live and on which they can support their families and there are some other conditions as well including conditions that prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and provide decent working conditions for workers on plantations so I think that this is a positive step the fair trade movement it's very big in coffee of course of which Brazil is a big producer and that was initially the first product that became well-established in the affluent world and it's spread to do tea and coffee

but now there are hundreds of products that you can buy in stores depending a bit on which country you're in there are hundreds of products that are Fairtrade labeled and I think that they're a good thing to look for I think they are an indication of a product that has been ethically produced in terms of giving a fair return to the workers of who produced it and that's something that I believe we should all do fair trades traduzido como comer so just a movimento internationale que busca stable SE pedro associazione dientes naka de prado TV

promo vendo pressu Stowe's even quantum odorous computer tourism service alan favor a seer agroecology consoie producing organic the problem now is the course that we have a system that is really built around profit we have a capitalist system and it's very difficult to bring ethics into the marketplace if you're competing with other competitors that are not ethical so what are the what are our options here I mean you could say well let's get rid of capitalism and have a more ethical system of production it's a nice idea but so far it hasn't really worked anywhere

certainly capitalism is extremely successful at being productive at producing the goods that we need to to eat and to live comfortable lives and I don't see any real sign that people are going to reject that for some rather speculative alternative that might be more ethical but might also be much less productive so the only other thing way of dealing with this problem is to have laws or regulations so that what we have is a more ethical arena in the marketplace so that for example if you treat your animals better let's say you don't have your

hens in cages but you allow them room to run around your eggs will not be undercut in price by somebody else who does have his hens in cages and therefore gets them more cheaply because the labor costs are lower so if in other words you had a law that says that hens must be a free to to walk around and to stretch their wings and do the other things that come naturally the hens then nobody could compete in that way and you could have a more ethical egg producers and in fact that has started to

happen to a small degree in some places in the European Union for example the whole of the European Union 27 different nations 450 million people they a year or two ago banned the standard cages for keeping egg-laying hens that doesn't mean that all of the hens can run around freely unfortunately it's not that good but they did require more space they required that the hens have a kind of a little nesting box to lay their eggs in which again is a natural instinct that they have to lay in a sort of nesting area so they

made some improvements and so you all of the producers therefore become just a little bit more ethical because they don't have to compete with producers who use the same battery cages that are being used here or that are standardly being used still in the United States for instance so that's really the kind of change you need you need to have political and legal change to produce more ethical consumption climate as a whole issues on the agenda I don't think that greenhouse gas emissions from livestock are very much on the agenda in fact I saw before

I came here a Brazilian study I can't remember the name of the scientist I'm sorry he did it was by that that you have this INPE scientific institute it was by somebody there who did a study of the Brazilian press coverage of greenhouse emissions in Brazil and showed that there was quite a lot of coverage of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use but very little coverage of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock even though that is a major contributor here in Brazil so I think that specific aspect of climate change does need to get put

on the agenda in a whole lot of nations where people are not sufficiently aware of it but you said well can we get animal welfare more on the agenda I think the answer is clearly yes when enough people demand that of their politicians that's what has to happen an animal welfare has in the last decade or so been on the agenda in Europe quite clearly as I said Europe has made some small but significant reforms in farm animal welfare and that's because people do vote on that basis the the political parties compete with each other

for saying we have a good animal welfare proposal good animal welfare policy statement that's that's really help that's made these changes possible so I think you need to have that you need to have an educated and concerned public which will treat this as a political issue and clearly you need then have organizations that are starting to make this a political issue it's also happening in the United States to some extent that at least in some states animal welfare is becoming as part of the political agenda but it's perhaps it's somewhere it's more culturally relative and

perhaps in Brazil it hasn't quite got to that point yet certainly unfortunately hasn't got to that point in China which is increasing its meat production a lot but you know it does have an animal movement I was there last year and they were animal rights activists and vegetarians at Chinese universities I spoke at but politically it certainly hasn't got on the national agenda and these things need to happen I agree okay a preciso fazer para Garrincha alimentos equally dodgy barratto's Peter seizure who's that chicas say lesson on Mellie or okay compromise his guitar his seat

as you know so spicy avoid a vote are perma producing sustained average alimentos Agoura le news follow keeping so bruised alimentos three amigos I'm not really convinced that there is a problem about transgenic food production I think it's still an open question so what are the worries about transgenic food production essentially there are two different types of worries one is that there will be a problem for our health with eating say either grains or soy beans that are genetically modified and the other is that there will be some kind of environmental escape of a genetically

modified plant that will get into the natural environment and will confer some advantage on it maybe it will be resistant to pests and therefore it will spread and so we will have a super weed which will get out of balance with the rest of the environment well as far as the health issues are concerned I think that there isn't really clear evidence of a danger to our health in eating transgenic foods a lot of people have been doing that now for quite a few years I mean you can't really exist in the United States without

eating genetically modified products because it's it's in it's a genetically modified wheat or corn or soybeans in so many products it's it would be very difficult not to but I haven't seen any studies that have clearly shown a link between that and some health problems I'm not saying that there isn't I know that there are some studies that have suggested some problems but they've not really been very large ones and not been I think sufficiently clear-cut to say that there is a health problem a third issue that I might mention is so far really at

least on a commercial scale the genetic modification has really been of plants we are now starting to have genetic modification of animals with genetically modified salmon I think the the first commercially released product there could be problems here there could be problems with interbreeding here too and they could also be problems with the well-being of the animal at some point so far again we don't really know enough about this so I think it's it's an issue that we ought to watch closely but it's not an issue that I could say at the moment is clearly

causing some kind of big ethical problem veganism emmav Assam do mundo come convictions there chicas but the others news delay - Susanna mais give it a Swiss pleura so you a buzu who's legal news is screwing the sewage at quite scarily Manske contain ingredients is during any mouth do I recommend this yes I think this is the most ethical diet you know why in the world as it is today that's that's why I do it I also think it's a healthy diet and there's you know a lot of evidence about that and I don't really

think it is realistic to think that everybody is going to go vegan somehow you know overnight it is going to be a long term process if it happens at all and will depend on the availability of alternatives for people so that's why you know I'm prepared to encourage people to take the first steps and I think that is a way of making progress in itself and a way of getting people more used to meals that are not based around meat and then it becomes easier for them to say oh well I've gone you know I'm

having one day a week without meat but that's easy and I'm enjoying it maybe I'll have two or three days and maybe they'll end up having seven days a week with that mean it's a it's a it's a way of getting there I think yeah that's it's interesting because in a way poorer people have traditionally less meat I mean it varies a bit from society to society but you know I take it that the black beans and rice is a sort of standard Brazilian dish that many people who can't afford to eat meat have been

eating just as in India they would eat lentils and rice dal and so on and and in China to the poor poorer people have eaten very little meat and that's why meat consumption is rising now because people are getting getting wealthier so part of the answer would be we can go back to these quite traditional and quite inexpensive dishes and they are quite healthy dishes because in all of the things you get your protein from the beans or the lentils you get your carbohydrates from the rice or bread or whatever else it might be there's

a good balance there and you know if there's traditional knowledge of how to cook them and that's that should work all right obviously there can be other things that people can get for some variety in some societies the problem is that people seem to have forgotten how to cook this is this is you know seriously this is a problem in the United States in poorer parts where people who really have much less money actually buy more processed and prepackaged prepaid foods which are much more expensive for kilo of food value that you're getting but you

know if you told them well this is how you make a tasty dish of beans and rice perhaps they would perhaps they would make it but but they've that traditional knowledge has somehow been lost so perhaps what we need educational programs to remind people of these ways of living a healthy and inexpensive life on on those basic staples you know garnished with variety from other things but with those kinds of things being the core of the and then it's it's not a problem for poor people you certainly can live very inexpensively on a vegetarian or

vegan diet there's a very good organization in the United States called vegan outreach which tries to educate people about vegan diets and gives out a lot of information and it does have some success but you know you have to here's an organization that has I don't know maybe it has an annual budget of half a million dollars so how does that compare with how much the big food corporations spend on promoting meat and eggs and dairy products that they're selling I mean they're spending billions of dollars tens of billions of dollars a year on selling

that message that you should eat McDonald's hamburger or you should eat some other kind of meat or animal product so it's going to be very hard to counter that and unless you were in some way to control the advertising of for meat in the way that typically the advertising for cigarettes is controlled you know then maybe you'd start to make some some headway but it would take a lot of political will to do that so I don't see this as as happening yet I think we it's still I hate to say this but I think

it's still worth trying to make the lives of animals killed for food better reduce their amount of suffering because I think it's that's going to be happening for quite a few years yet and of course I support efforts to reduce the amount of animals that are raised and killed for food as much as possible but it's going to be it's going to take some time before we succeed in there at the foundation of this is the idea of being willing to put yourself in the position of the other and that is true of course about

ethics in general it's it's the idea that is expressed in the Jewish and Christian traditions as doing unto others as you would have them do unto you so if you take that seriously you have to think well how would I like it if I would you know if I were in their position and somebody was doing to me what I am now thinking about doing to them and that's not only part of the Jewish and Christian traditions it's actually something that you can find in the most thoughtful and reflective ethical writings of a wide range

of traditions including one's quite independent of the Western traditions like the in Chinese ethics or in Indian ethics you find this idea that people have to do this for non-human animals as well as for humans for the ethical argument that I made the first of the arguments against for ethical eating to hold but not everybody does that and even some people who have companion animals quite strangely I think do that a lot for their their dog or cat and then don't think about it at all for the the chicken or pork that's on their plate

and and never really imagined or Eve asked themselves what did that animal go through they don't even really think of what's on their plate as having been the flesh of a living animal that had some experiences so the first thing we have to do is make people aware of that make people aware that if they're eating meat that was part of a living animal or so and then they can ask the question put yourself in that place now I think most people are prepared to do that but it's true that I've had some people who

just say well I don't care about chickens and then the problem is what do you say to someone who just said I don't care about chickens you know maybe I empathize with dogs or cats I like them but chickens I don't feel anything about then I think you really have to try to say that the fact that our being is suffering the fact that it being is in pain even if you don't particularly like that being that that's a reason to stop that pain or to try to prevent that pain happening in future to similar

beings I think really there is something objective and and based in reason about ethics and that is that there are some things that are bad like suffering great pain and there are some things that are good like enjoying your life and you know maybe not everybody is going to admit that but there are some points where it's hard to persuade everybody but I think you can probably persuade most people that pain is a bad thing and that it's a bad thing whether or not they like the being or feel some particular emotional link to the

being who is in pain convey testify to argentino care so comida en Casa be GOG venzas alimentos de como le Sun produces estado importante Ponto submerse was qualidade nutritionist a Chico a que se preocupe accompained ecology v dodge in Ella influency Rosanna mais esta yatras para atras voz en contra no saya tidak sip fel equal to Susy strategies are promote via include zone Pakistani Mao has agendas políticas do I recommend this yes I think this is the most ethical diet analytically knee up to keep introducing vision town the main stage example and that's a society

you