ah, and she explains to us what happens to our bodies when the conscious mind is taking a break law to borrow to day. in 60 minutes on d, w. every journey begins with the 1st step in and every language with the 1st word. eloise pinnacle. rico is in germany to learn german. why not learn with him? it's simple online, on your mobile and free to shop. d w e learning course. nikos vague german made easy. ah ah, imagine intelligent aliens discover earth were incomplete aw, at the elegance of their language. their art technology and their wisdom. but shortly after they arrive, the aliens begin to put us in cramps stalls. they force females to breed,

take their babies away and drink their milk. they force us to eat from morning to night, so that we're so fat that even as children we can't stand on our own. finally, as teenagers were carted off to factories to be slaughtered on assembly lines, we protest, but the aliens don't understand our outrage. they are far too intellectually superior, and they like the way we taste. of course, we wouldn't agree with the aliens behavior, but would it be morally wrong? oh, ah . when we gaze into the heavens,

we might sometimes wonder how our actions will be perceived throughout eternity. some people would think that the question of what is right or wrong is entirely subjective. that it's up to me. what i think is right or wrong is what cancer. and when you might have some completely different view and we just exchanging preferences, just like maybe you like indian food and i prefer chinese food. i don't believe that that's true. peter singer at princeton university is one of the most influential philosophers today in i believe that there is scope for reason and argument in discussing ethics. and at the very least that there are people, many people who, how positions that they haven't thought of that haven't reflected on. and that when they do reflect on it, they find that many of they beliefs not really consistent me. peter singers,

world view centers on the doctrine of utilitarianism. it is trying to why the net balance of pleasure versus pain, or happiness versus suffering and to maximize that. so the right action for utilitarian is the action that has the best consequences for all of those affected and best consequences here means promoting the greatest amount of well being for all of those effect. oh, if we took a utilitarian perspective and had to decide between several possible actions, we would have to consider how each will affect the happiness of all those involved . let's say we're expecting 10 guests for dinner. ringback 3 of them like roast beef 7 like chicken. what should we cook. ringback as a doctor, should we give friends to other doctors in

a disaster so that we can work together to save more people? whoa, should we hope the tobacco lobbyist who asks for directions to the german parliament, even if he is likely to cause great social hon with the extra office time he gains? by getting there quickly. as utilitarians, we calculate what each possible action would contribute to the total happiness in the universe. then we choose the one that maximize sick i. we direct them obvious to the woods, prioritize the other doctor. and naturally we'd make chicken. oh, that's the way utilitarianism works. but peter singer has taken it a step further. he asks, what about the interests of the chicken? you can't draw the line between the species because i don't believe that species is

itself a morally relevant criterion. if we look back in time, we can see how the concept of a species has no clear boundary. imagine you take your mother by the hand and she takes her mother's hand and her mother takes her mother's hand back through the family tree. you follow it down for thousands and millions of years and there's a chimpanzee somewhere in africa doing the same thing. he takes his mother's hand and the mother takes her mother's hand back into the past until you find a common mother. the chain of human beings and primates would be about 1000 kilometers long. you and the chimpanzee are distant cousins, reaching out to each other across the ages. if species were a moral boundary, then at some point there would be a mother and a child. one would be human and the other animal. one would be our moral equivalent and the other, not at all. ah,

we humans are far closer to a chimpanzee. vantage. and pansy is it even a dog let alone to an oyster or something that's not even a veteran. but our legal system traditionally recognizes only one distinction in the animal kingdom, homo sapiens, and everyone else here are choices. i could sit here in the witness box. and the metaphor is that i'm a witness testifying for animals. gary francy own is professor of law and philosophy or i could sit here in the jury box. i'm one of the jurors, or he pioneer teaching animal rights in the 1980s. i could sit up here where the judges sit. these closely examined the history of the relationship between animals

and the law. your choice. in the west, before the 900 century animals were largely excluded from the moral and legal community altogether, they were regard this things. today, many countries have animal protection laws. they forbid causing animals unnecessary suffering. the thing is, is that because animals, their property, our moral thinking is tremendously skewed. in a very bizarre, weird directions. jerry frenchy own explains what he sees as a contradiction in animal protection law. knowing that the laws that provide for the protection of animals are interpreted in a way that reflect their proper. their status is channel property. it, it means in essence, that the laws can't really apply to them in a meaningful way because the laws don't permit us to look at use. the

concept of property means that the owner is able to use it, but they can't without violence. if a person wants to keep livestock, the animals must be confined and those who want to eat animals must kill them. oh. then the only question becomes, is the treatment necessary given uses that may not be necessary because the reality is we don't need to eat animals by declaring animals as property. the law puts economic interests in competition with animal interest. that's why we accept that female pigs can be left in narrow cages for weeks. and that 23 hands can live in one square meter and turkeys who are so over fed. they can't stand up. we cut off the pigs tails, and turkey's beaks. we separate newborn camps from their mothers and simply accept that pigs in stock yards scream for their lives before their slaughtered. we except

it all because we have to in order to use animals effectively. so what does it mean to say we should inflict unnecessary suffering and food animals? what does that mean? it means that we shouldn't inflict unnecessary unnecessary suffering on animals. we shouldn't inflict gratuitous suffering on animals. the laws assume that institutionalized exploitation is a legitimate exercise of property rights. so what you end up with are cases where kids are lighting dogs on fire cats and microwave ovens those and that's, that's what you have for an animal cruelty. i have a safe week every body france, he own says there's only one way to end the routine torture of livestock animals need rights. i subscribe to a rights position. that is not

a utilitarian. and i believe that all sentient beings have the right not to be regarded as property me. she believes in all the rights and responsibilities that always apply in de and tom g. the ethics of duty and obligation, there is no wing the good and bad consequences of an action. instead, there are universal laws that all reasonable beings in the universe can agree on. that shall francy own, differs from peter singer and his utilitarianism. people who think that humans have rights and also those who think that animals have, i'd say there are some things that you must never do to a human no matter what the consequences. so a difference in the case of humans might be suppose that a terrorist had he put a nuclear bomb in the center of new york. and the only way you could find the bombing time to disarm it would be to torture the terrorist. well,

i really strict human rights advocate would say torture is wrong. we never have a ride to torture. it's all, it's always a violation of human, right? utilitarian would say if you tried everything else and this is the only way to stop the nuclear bomb going off in the center of new york, you would be justified in torturing the terrorist. oh, he julie cherry and his men, d ontology, are 2 of the most important schools of font with an ethical philosophy. often the result in opposite conclusions, someone basing their choice on the ethics of responsibility would treat an injured dr. first, even if that meant you'd save fewer people, deonte ologist would show the tobacco lobby's the way to parliament. because telling people, the truth is a fixed rule. but when it comes to eating animals, both schools of thought have come to the same conclusion. the only real instance in which we'd have a debate would be about the use of animals in biomedical research to cure serious

human illnesses where there's a real conflict. that's the only situation in which there is a plausible conflict that would justify using and killing animals. and so in a sense, we engage in what we suffer from, what i call moral skits freeney. and i'm using that literally, i'm saying it's, it's sort of like a moral version of classical delusional thinking. and one hand. we all, except that animals matter morally, no doubt about that. we accepted they matter morally and we have moral obligations that we owe directly to them to treat them humanely into not inflict anesur suffering. but yet we all engage are most of us engage in behaviors which are inconsistent with that. so you'll have a situation where tonight. so many people will be watching this documentary. and who believe that they believe that it's wrong when flicked unnecessary, suffering, and animals. and while they're watching your documentary, they're going to be eating, they're meeting their fish in their chicken and in

a drinking their milk and eating their eggs. which is bizarre when you think about it, they don't need to be doing that. and if they really believed what they say, they believe they wouldn't be doing any of that. does more reflection inevitably lead to the conclusion that we must do without animal products entirely? the common starting premise is that animals like us are sentiment. but what do we actually know about the inner life of animals, which many of us eat every day? ah, 5 eggs are extremely clever. they can learn all sorts of things. university researcher, sarah windsor, is analyzing the emotions of livestock in vienna, lima. as you see, they have funding all sorts of things, especially getting into mischief. she wants to understand their inner life, sas of a thing, and most important thing is that we ask questions in

a way that can be interested in a picky way. so until i religous find the death thank a ship with in the experiment, the pigs ring bells open doors and push buttons. boy, if i think we're trying to draw conclusions about the animals emotions from their behavior, physiology and cognition of the pig self complex problems, they're able to learn what happens behind each door and differentiate between long and short. sounds. yes, thought. oh, lying. good. thank a sion seeking one to think lately. alamos fine and these are actually pigs that will lay to be fat and slaughtered and meet sold all that also quite relevant for us. and you also see that these animals have such a rich repertoire of behaviors. they can learn and we see what types of personalities they have her on that no peek is like another leather does kind

family does. and that you can tell them apart from their character. don't worry about the animals have names allen, the doctor, the doctoral candidates work with them every day, and they really know them on and that's not easy. and we talk about it a lot to lay now says it over and it works for me personally. for example, because we are hoping to generate data and knowledge that will actually help a very large group of animals on the mazda until of his me. and it's not just peaks, or surprisingly like us, many farm animals have astonishingly complex in her lives. chickens are able to add up to 5 sheep can distinguish between photographs of different people. researchers have even been able to demonstrate that cows actually experience joy when they learn something new. the basic hypothesis of animal ethics that animals have feelings and interests can hardly be rationally denied.

but where do we draw the line to mushrooms, maybe have mines or bacteria or plants if the organism or, and entity has it, then it is something. it's like to be that entity, evolutionary biologist, john mallet, his focus precisely on the distinction between the sentiment and non santian world . the function of consciousness is to take many types of sensory information from all our senses and assembling that into a mapped picture of the world. sort of a simulated theater of the mind. john mallet has examined countless brains. from this he developed his theory of the formation of consciousness. he says that any one who wants to understand why feeling came into the world, needs to take

a trip back in time to our planets, ancient history to the early cambrian period. the story starts out a little over a half a 1000000000 years ago with see scott, i'm a ocean floor. it's called him i. cro beyond mack, these microbial mats are made up of bacteria and algae. a layer of one celled organisms like a giant green carpet of plaque on the, the floor was maybe this thick on all the shower, see floors on earth interest a tremendous nutrient source, a tremendous food source. the 1st animals existed at this time, but we wouldn't recognize them as animals today. some of them were really bizarre, anchored to the mat and then they were like sheep like leaves. but the ones we're most interested in here is worms. there were so many different kinds of worms,

as we see by their warm trails. it was even called a warm world. there's a big difference between this world world and today's animal kingdom. there apparently was no predation at all. it was a world without claws and teeth and the worms as the most active animals at the time to seem perfectly happy and satisfied with their rich buffet of their food source of the microbial mat. and then everything changed. the 1st worms began to eat one another. it was probably just as simple as one species of worm, starting with scavenging, finding a calf rattan piece of worm and finding that is a really rich nutrient source. and then to specialize, odd eating other living worms of other species. that's how these worms, more or less by accident became the world's 1st meat eaters. and with that,

it's set off a huge competition, a huge competitive cambrian arms raised at dynamic speeds. it took a few 1000000 years. the hunted animals developed diverse strategies to protect themselves from predators. shellfish came into existence. worms learned to bury themselves in the sand, but the most interesting counter strategy against predation was fast escape. up to this point, life on earth followed a slow rhythm of growth just as plants do today. but if you wanted to respond to threats in real time, then you had to be able to accurately perceive the world around you. that led to the evolution of camera image forming eyes where they could see the predators coming real sensitive skin where they could feel vibrations from predators coming or for a really great sense of smell. so they could smell that in predators in the area

and could be, could becoming the most decisive factor for successful escape was knowing that predators could still be there even when sensors didn't perceive them. at that moment the inner stage was born and with it consciousness, the predators were evolving in the same way in order to catch. ready pray and pray that he had, well pray that moved away fast. the predators also had evolved image forming camera eyes so they could see their whole environment. just like the pray could. they could build this theater stage of the mind that i told you about. and along with consciousness came feelings, giving significance to the impressions on the inner stage. if there's a big, big, dangerous predator coming suddenly that gets assigned lots and lots of a poor. important in the importance ranking of all the things on our theater stage . from an evolutionary standpoint, feelings exist primarily to save us from being eaten animals talented and

perceiving pain and fear prevail. the tax on that was best at escaping the predators was our own ancestors. the 1st vertebrates, the, the 1st fish ah, all of the vertebrates of today descended from these 1st flight animals, fish and vivian's reptiles, birds, and mammals. and the 1st predators turned into the answer paused and so follow pods of to day. insect spiders, crabs and octopuses had the 1st predators as their ancestors. and we're linked to all of them by the magical capability of feeling with that would mean for, for all the other organisms, the lights are out, there's nothing, it's like to be them. and so a line can actually be drawn, there is life without consciousness, plants,

and funky, and perhaps worms, muscles or jelly fish. their movements are just reflexes because they're unable to feel anything. what we do to them doesn't matter to them. and there are animals that can suffer animals like us and the ones we eat. if we want to avoid inflicting suffering, that it makes an enormous difference. which beings we choose to eat for nourishment . doesn't that say at all from a moral standpoint? ah. oh, oh, visitors to new orleans, louisiana, and observe an extremely rare species. dance. yeah, har is a philosopher who argues in favor of eating meat. it's so easy to make bad arguments here, like you've heard about our units and there at the tip of your tongue. you know,

this is tasty, so therefore i should eat it. and that's not a good argument. we need to, to take this a lot more seriously. if we're going to formulate a genuine defense of this practice that most people engage and every day his argument starts at the supermarket, the hidden one think that might be our winner enjoy. for him, there's a difference between buying a pork shoulder to barbecue with neighbors, and being responsible for the conditions in which an animal is kept and killed. he has the impact of one sale is so small. it hardly makes a difference. a grocer can't afford to make their decisions about what items to stock in a way that would be sensitive to whether or not one person decides to have you know, toefl for dinner tonight or pork chops. he sees vegetarianism as

a type of activism but he says vegetarian behavior will only have an effect when many people take it up. but even if you think that individuals don't make a really tangible difference, it's surely the case that the vegetarian movement overall is making that kind of impact. we should celebrate them. we should applaud them. to the extent i disagree with vegetarians, it is mainly because better parents often think that it's wrong not to be a vegetarian. and that's the thing i don't think is right. there are a tremendous number of really important problems in the world that are crying out for people to tackle them. and my view is just that, it's okay for people to focus on some of them and, you know, except that they're not going to tackle every problems. that's the central point of

shars argument. one person alone cannot be active in all social movements at the same time. that's why no one is obligated to take part in a certain movement just as we don't need everybody to be hospital nurses. just as we don't need everybody to be farmers, right. we don't need everybody to be the same kind of active. what we need are activists of many kinds tackling many different kinds of problems and collectively working to make the world a better place. shars theses shown convincing a single purchase makes no difference. and not all people should commit to the same things. but what if we take those thoughts further? how would we answer pet of files who could make the very same argument that downloading a single image makes no difference at all. and that instead of supporting the rights of children, we should commit to another good cause. can something that is morally wrong,

really be so easily rationalize. eliminate any player hand may make it happen. what remains is more likely our admission that doing without animal products is harder for us than we wish it to be. but what would happen if you take taste out of the equation? researchers all over the world have long been looking for alternate ways for us to satisfy our appetite for, meet the ah, ah ah. with

who i am tired hood but unable to sleep. try hypnosis. sleep researcher and christina luma knows all about what helps promote quality sleep at night. and she explained to us what happens to our bodies

when the conscious mind is taking a break. move to morrow to day. in 30 minutes on d, w, and st. louis c, n n t beaches. spring in my orca. before the holiday crowds take over. lucas stay explores with german torres. this favorite island. why is my york so popular? that's what i want to find out. ah 60 minutes. do you? oh, go with who do they think they are?

good questions. you can find the answers here. all the games, all the goals. the point is the highlights on d w. so i was just rescuing deducted from a farm. this one, the bodies, all the, you know, i found it like this and i couldn't just leave it. there should be a such a great burden. it was so dirty that cleaning it, turn the entire bathroom into a mess. this is the water birds 1st. well, one of the most beautiful moments i've ever experienced a w series about our complex relationship with animals.

well, i think i will live long enough to witness the factory farming. the great debate this week on d. w or ah, ah ah, this is dw news live from berlin. dozens of people die in the bow, gray, coff, italy, the overcrowded migrant vessel sinks in stormy seas. off the southern cars, more than 18 people have been rescued by many others are still missing. also coming up.